Unfair Restrictions III

[Jazzratt]

This thread is for you to ask about your restriction or protest a restriction you feel was unfair, within the rules of the board. This is not a thread for you to whine that the moderating team/admins/CC are all really, really mean or that our restriction policy is wrong or "oppresive".

For an example of what not to do go to page 23 of the old thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictionsi-ii-t87501/index23.html) and read on from there. If you feel really masochistic there are a number of other members earlier in the thread who demonstrated similiar inability to follow simple instructions.

[PCommie]

This is the last time I'm going to bother saying this: I'm done with the Prenatal Rights thread. It's been proven to me that, as a communist, I really can't hold a reasonable opposition to most abortion. I'd like to be let back into the forum proper now as I really feel I have a lot to learn and contribute to the discussions that take place here; there's so much I want to say to these threads, and I cannot, because I'm locked up here, and I'm asking to be let out.

H&S forever,
-PC

[RGacky3]

It's been proven to me that, as a communist, I really can't hold a reasonable opposition to most abortion.

What is wrong with you, communism is'nt a freaking religion. You have the backbone of a jellyfish.

[apathy maybe]

This is the last time I'm going to bother saying this: I'm done with the Prenatal Rights thread. It's been proven to me that, as a communist, I really can't hold a reasonable opposition to most abortion. I'd like to be let back into the forum proper now as I really feel I have a lot to learn and contribute to the discussions that take place here; there's so much I want to say to these threads, and I cannot, because I'm locked up here, and I'm asking to be let out.

H&S forever,
-PC
Good luck with that.


What is wrong with you, communism is'nt a freaking religion. You have the backbone of a jellyfish.
They were shown the evidence and they accepted that they were incorrect.


Saying that it isn't a religion is an absurd thing to say. That's like saying: "Anarchism isn't a religion, and for you to stop being an anarcho-fascist is not having a backbone."

The fact is, you can't be a fascist and an anarchist, the two are mutually exclusive.

[Nulono]

This is the last time I'm going to bother saying this: I'm done with the Prenatal Rights thread. It's been proven to me that, as a communist, I really can't hold a reasonable opposition to most abortion. I'd like to be let back into the forum proper now as I really feel I have a lot to learn and contribute to the discussions that take place here; there's so much I want to say to these threads, and I cannot, because I'm locked up here, and I'm asking to be let out.

H&S forever,
-PCI don't believe you. You weren't persuaded that communism supports abortion; you changed your entire definition of personhood to one that, frankly, excludes infants.

Try again.

[RGacky3]

They were shown the evidence and they accepted that they were incorrect.


Saying that it isn't a religion is an absurd thing to say. That's like saying: "Anarchism isn't a religion, and for you to stop being an anarcho-fascist is not having a backbone."

The reason he gave was'nt that he was convinced that his position was actually incorrect. It was "as a communist I cannot be anti-abortion," which means he's defining himself as a "communist" then this moral convictions follow. Its like saying "well I'm a christian thus I believe this" rather than "I believe this thus I'm a christian". The former shows no moral conviction whatsoever.

[Nulono]

http://www.diclib.com/cgi-bin/d1.cgi?l=en&base=amslang&page=showid&id=249

[PCommie]

Suck it, the both of you. Neither is fucking religion; I dropped that because it was proven BS. Abortion can't honestly be outlawed in a communist society because, as I fucking explained before, the rights of a developed person must be considered before the rights of a fetus and I'd hold the same goddamn position if this forum changed policy right now.

I think Obama's shoes need shining. Why don't you fuck off and get to work.

-PC

[Kronos]

You have the backbone of a jellyfish.

Ignore this ironic simile, PC. Such zoomorphistic obfuscation is contradictio in terminis through metalepsis via rhetorical device.

He is only trying to confuse you and call you a wus.

Jellyfish don't even have backbones, PC. They have hydrostatic skeletons.

[Nulono]

Suck it, the both of you. Neither is fucking religion; I dropped that because it was proven BS. Abortion can't honestly be outlawed in a communist society because, as I fucking explained before, the rights of a developed person must be considered before the rights of a fetus and I'd hold the same goddamn position if this forum changed policy right now.

I think Obama's shoes need shining. Why don't you fuck off and get to work.

-PCWe're all still developing. Development is a continuum.
But that's exactly my point. You defend abortion because you feel the fetus is not a person. Socialism itself is an economic ideology with absolutely no definition of personhood.

[PCommie]

Well shit, let's see. Socialism makes the PEOPLE the supreme force in the world. If a fetus can be defined as not a person, then the woman IS given rights over it by Socialist/Communist ideology.

-PC

[Jazzratt]

Shut up all of you. There are two threads open already for you to keep having the same fucking debate in. You're still on the same fucking page as the description of the thread's purpose; I didn't write it up for a laugh and this kind of shit is not part of the purpose. So fuck off.

[PCommie]

I didn't start this debate, sir, and won't continue it here. I just came here to say that my opinion has changed and I'm asking to be unrestricted, and I'll leave it at that.

-PC

[Nulono]

Well shit, let's see. Socialism makes the PEOPLE the supreme force in the world. If a fetus can be defined as not a person, then the woman IS given rights over it by Socialist/Communist ideology.

-PC

My point exactly. A socialist can be anti-abortion if they also believe the fetus is a person. No contradiction there.

Whether or not a fetus is a person is debatable, but it is surely socialism is entirely compatible with an anti-abortion position.

[Jazzratt]

My point exactly. A socialist can be anti-abortion if they also believe the fetus is a person. No contradiction there.

Whether or not a fetus is a person is debatable, but it is surely socialism is entirely compatible with an anti-abortion position.


Shut up all of you. There are two threads open already for you to keep having the same fucking debate in. You're still on the same fucking page as the description of the thread's purpose; I didn't write it up for a laugh and this kind of shit is not part of the purpose. So fuck off.

What is it that prevents you from understanding posts written in plain english giving you simple instructions? Are you being deliberately vexing?

[Nulono]

Give me $247.

[Sean]

Nulono stop being such an awesome rebel and posting crap in this thread. You've been told umpteen times and had so many posts trashed from here that its obvious you're just spamming here to roleplay fighting the power against the evil mods that so villainously try to keep it clear for geniune cases of unfair restriction. Have another Verbal warning. You have nothing more to say in this thread, you've been addressed and have two other abortion threads to play in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you delete this post, I will kill myself!

Go ahead. You will not be missed.

[RedAnarchist]

If you delete this post, I will kill myself!

I'm giving you an infraction for spamming. Please do not post anymore in this thread unless it is about your restriction.

[danyboy27]

what going on here?

[RedAnarchist]

what going on here?

What do you mean?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Nulono may have been annoying, but for the record I do think he was correct regarding certain pro-life positions not being incompatible with socialism.

[Sean]

Well, for the millionth time, they are incompatible with this particular website's guidelines as voted for by the trusted members. Whether a policy is right or wrong is not something which is debated here, what is whether or not a user has been incorrectly restricted for something which is acceptable according to the policy. That's as clear as you're going to get it and I am frankly sick of spelling it out over and over again. That's not aimed at you, ever closer union, but rather those that continue to ignore this fact.
Once more:
If you want to challenge policy, eg.you want antichoice members to be unrestricted, you need to be in the CC.
If you want to challenge the application of policy on yourself, eg. being falsely accused of holding antichoice views through some misunderstanding, then you can post it here.

EDIT: Straight away under this TomK comes in with exactly what I'm talking about. Trashed. Do it again you get an infraction for spamming. Don't troll this thread you know what its for.

[danyboy27]

humm, i havnt been unrestricted yet, wich mean:

-you guy completly forgot
-a lot of people in the cc really hate me
-i have been branded has a cop apologist.

if the reason why i have been rescticted is the last one on my list, i would be happy to explain.

i also said a lot of naughty word about Stalin but i dont think that revelant if you want to keep me unrestricted.

[Sean]

can you restrict me please? i ask thatbeccause i feel i belong to the OI, i have nothing revolutionary at alland i am a social democrat.

i will be really glad if you would do that
tanks
That was in January.

Answer to next question: No, you cannot change your mind about that, besides which you only ever posted in here beforehand anyway.

[danyboy27]

That was in January.

Answer to next question: No, you cannot change your mind about that, besides which you only ever posted in here beforehand anyway.


people change you know. i dont have much faith now in the current system.

anyway, i got my answer, tanks you

[Sean]

You haven't shown that you've changed, only that you've changed your mind about wanting to be restricted though! Of course people change mate.:)

[danyboy27]

You haven't shown that you've changed, only that you've changed your mind about wanting to be restricted though! Of course people change mate.:)

i have expressed my distrust toward the whole state concept several times, started a thread about the organization level in an anarchist society, expressed my deep distrust of the whole representative democracy things, and aknoledged that class indeed exist and cause countless problem into today society.

now, if you dont want to unrestrict me even after all that, that perfectly fine, but you cant say i havnt radically changed since then.

[apathy maybe]

I think it's unfair if they would not be normally restricted, that they can't be unrestricted.

[RGacky3]

just a little question, was I the first one here restricted for being against abortion? I was actually in the CC at the time, but never went to the forum.

[Jazzratt]

just a little question, was I the first one here restricted for being against abortion? I was actually in the CC at the time, but never went to the forum.

Not as far as I'm aware, no. You've been denied that medal :p

[Sean]

I think it's unfair if they would not be normally restricted, that they can't be unrestricted.
Actually he said plenty of cappie stuff in IRC, however because it wasn't in a thread it was never brought up. Noone said he can't be unrestricted, I'm just not leading the charge. I don't read OI normally.

[danyboy27]

Actually he said plenty of cappie stuff in IRC, however because it wasn't in a thread it was never brought up. Noone said he can't be unrestricted, I'm just not leading the charge. I don't read OI normally.

i said the word faggot once.
didnt knew what was the real meaning of this word in the first place before some dude start sending me hate stuff the second i said it, i apologized, and the second after that i was restricted.

i also said a lot of pro social democrat stuff, but has i said earlier, i changed, so those comment dosnt really reflect what i am now. i was in a bad mood back then.

[Vincent P.]

Isn't it possible just to create a new account?

[RedAnarchist]

Isn't it possible just to create a new account?

That would be a sockpuppet, and it would be banned, and probably your original account would be banned too.

[Sean]

i said the word faggot once.
didnt knew what was the real meaning of this word in the first place before some dude start sending me hate stuff the second i said it, i apologized, and the second after that i was restricted.

i also said a lot of pro social democrat stuff, but has i said earlier, i changed, so those comment dosnt really reflect what i am now. i was in a bad mood back then.
Hah, I didn't even know you were homophobic in IRC, I was referring to your political beliefs. Homophobia has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm interested to know how you can infer from what he said that he was homophobic.

[Kronos]

You think being homophobic is bad.....try being phobohomic.

Every time I become frightened or scared...I turn gay.

The doctors and psychologists are stumped. They've never seen anything like it.

[Havet]

Hey WHEN did i become restricted?

why wasn't i notified?

or given any warning?

I barely talk outside of OI anyway, only on Science occasionally and now in Theory (in The State) thread.

Could anyone please explain?

Did i do something wrong?

[Bud Struggle]

Hey WHEN did i become restricted?

why wasn't i notified?

or given any warning?

I barely talk outside of OI anyway, only on Science occasionally and now in Theory (in The State) thread.

Could anyone please explain?

Did i do something wrong?

I believe you were restricted for being a Capitalist. Only true Communists can be on the RevLeft boards. It's something they started when too many Capitalists invaded the boards and started fights in every thread.

As our Glorious Leader said (and you have quoted in your sig line,) "This is a leftist BB (a private place, not a society or country!), so please hold on with pathetic speeches about freedom of speech now.2 - Edelweiss

RevLeft was designed not as a Socialist country--it was modeled after a Degenerate Worker State. So welcome to the Gulag! :D

[Pogue]

Hey WHEN did i become restricted?

why wasn't i notified?

or given any warning?

I barely talk outside of OI anyway, only on Science occasionally and now in Theory (in The State) thread.

Could anyone please explain?

Did i do something wrong?

Your a right wing fuck.

[Havet]

Your a right wing fuck.

right wing my ass. I'm sorry for not knowing an ANARCHIST WITHOUT ADJECTIVES COUNTS as right wing. I suppose one of these days even mutualism classifies as right-wing...

Even if i were a right wing, didn't start "a fight" outside OI, so i do not see why restricting me when my main hangout was already OI. By restricting me you have deprived me of accessing MY THREADS in Science and one i was discussing in Theory (The State).

[GPDP]

Hey WHEN did i become restricted?

why wasn't i notified?

or given any warning?

I barely talk outside of OI anyway, only on Science occasionally and now in Theory (in The State) thread.

Could anyone please explain?

Did i do something wrong?

There's your problem, then. Cappies are NOT supposed to post outside OI. I must say you are kind of an aberration in that it took waaaaaaaaaaay too long for an admin to notice you and restrict you (usually capitalists are restricted within the first few days of them posting), but it may have simply been you pretty much isolated yourself to OI, so it wasn't a real problem. Until you started posting on the main boards, that is.

Remember, this is ultimately a forum for revolutionary leftists, and the purpose of OI is to focus discussion within that framework alone while still allowing right-wingers, reformists, and other assorted weirdos like trivias to post and debate. In the meantime, discussion on other boards is for us on the revolutionary left to debate amongst ourselves without having to deal with right-wing arguments.

And yes, to us, you count as a right-winger, because you sympathize with anarcho-capitalism (a right-wing ideology in our books), despite describing yourself as an "anarchist without adjectives." We've restricted many people like you. And no, mutualism does not count as right-wing to us. We recently unrestricted one that used to be an ancap, and we even have a mutualist in the CC at the moment.

As for your threads, that is unfortunate, but you are free to start a new thread, and continue the discussion here. I'm sure those you were debating with will follow through.

[Havet]

There's your problem, then. Cappies are NOT supposed to post outside OI. I must say you are kind of an aberration in that it took waaaaaaaaaaay too long for an admin to notice you and restrict you (usually capitalists are restricted within the first few days of them posting), but it may have simply been you pretty much isolated yourself to OI, so it wasn't a real problem. Until you started posting on the main boards, that is.

Remember, this is ultimately a forum for revolutionary leftists, and the purpose of OI is to focus discussion within that framework alone while still allowing right-wingers, reformists, and other assorted weirdos like trivias to post and debate. In the meantime, discussion on other boards is for us on the revolutionary left to debate amongst ourselves without having to deal with right-wing arguments.

And yes, to us, you count as a right-winger, because you sympathize with anarcho-capitalism (a right-wing ideology in our books), despite describing yourself as an "anarchist without adjectives." We've restricted many people like you. And no, mutualism does not count as right-wing to us. We recently unrestricted one that used to be an ancap, and we even have a mutualist in the CC at the moment.

As for your threads, that is unfortunate, but you are free to start a new thread, and continue the discussion here. I'm sure those you were debating with will follow through.

and when i debated outside of OI i never EVER used "right-wing" arguments whatsoever. You can check it out yourselves...

In Science:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/seed-bombing-t109177/index.html?p=1446945#post1446945

http://www.revleft.com/vb/coal-ship-boarded-t111625/index.html?p=1474173#post1474173

http://www.revleft.com/vb/global-warming-health-t111026/index.html?p=1466561#post1466561

http://www.revleft.com/vb/seasteading-climate-change-t111954/index.html?p=1478169#post1478169

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wind-power-revolution-t110002/index.html?p=1456687#post1456687

http://www.revleft.com/vb/diy-solar-energy-t109449/index.html?t=109449&highlight=stirling+engine


and in Theory:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1483718#post1483718

I even got thanked in some of my threads!

Now, can someone please re-look at the reasons behind my restriction? I think i am being treated a bit unfairly here, obviously i would agree with your restriction in case i was arguing an "opposing ideology" outside OI forum, but in the rare cases i posted outside, it was mostly to discuss scientific and technological news and in Theory, discussing the definition of state. that's it.

[GPDP]

Honestly, it's just usual board protocol at this point. There's nothing personal about this. You hold an OI, you belong in the OI. It's that simple. You don't even have to argue an OI outside OI for restriction to apply. You are just a special case in that your restriction took far longer to apply than is usually the case.

I see nothing unfair about this. If anything, we treated you very generously for someone of your kind by keeping you unrestricted this long. Though it's not really a case of deliberately giving you a break so much as your case not being brought up to an admin until now for whatever reason.

In any case, I don't think your unrestriction would set a good precedent. Doing so would be to spit in the face of established board policy. What would doing so say other than "You can hold an OI and post anywhere on the board so long as you don't argue an OI outside the OI board"? How would that be enforced? Not to mention it would only give mods and admins an extra workload, making sure proven OIers don't overstep their boundaries when posting outside OI. It just isn't practical, nor would it be fair to extend that privilege to you and not the rest of OI. Hell, I'm sure TomK has some interesting things to say about the environment that few of us would find disagreeable. Doesn't mean we're about to unrestrict him so he can post those thing in the S&E board, only for us to have to keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't start spouting cappie bullshit none of us want to read outside OI.

[Havet]

Honestly, it's just usual board protocol at this point. There's nothing personal about this. You hold an OI, you belong in the OI. It's that simple. You don't even have to argue an OI outside OI for restriction to apply. You are just a special case in that your restriction took far longer to apply than is usually the case.

I see nothing unfair about this. If anything, we treated you very generously for someone of your kind by keeping you unrestricted this long. Though it's not really a case of deliberately giving you a break so much as your case not being brought up to an admin until now for whatever reason.

In any case, I don't think your unrestriction would set a good precedent. Doing so would be to spit in the face of established board policy. What would doing so say other than "You can hold an OI and post anywhere on the board so long as you don't argue an OI outside the OI board"? How would that be enforced? Not to mention it would only give mods and admins an extra workload, making sure proven OIers don't overstep their boundaries when posting outside OI. It just isn't practical, nor would it be fair to extend that privilege to you and not the rest of OI. Hell, I'm sure TomK has some interesting things to say about the environment that few of us would find disagreeable. Doesn't mean we're about to unrestrict him so he can post those thing in the S&E board, only for us to have to keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't start spouting cappie bullshit none of us want to read outside OI.

ok i think i can agree with that.

[Havet]

ok i think i can agree with that.

actually, that doesn't sound fair at all

By what right do YOU CAPITALISTS EXPLOIT ME of my COLLECTIVE RIGHT to post in any damn thread i like?

Why do you "LANDOWNERS" think you can forbid me of my NEED to post ouside OI?

This whole website is a means of production: a means of producing and discussing information regarding communism. Why do you think you can PRIVATIZE the rules to the COLLECTIVE? To FORBID the rest of the members to have a say in the way THIS "FACTORY" is run? Just because the original founding fathers of this website voted that way, or some ELITE now gets to vote, why doesn't the MAJORITY vote for it DEMOCRATICALLY?

We website posters don't have money to pay for our website ourselves. If we did we would be website OWNERS. You REALLY need to learn the concept of INFORMATION SLAVERY. It is slavery, for one has to join a forum from a capitalist. If not, we will be deprived of information. Therefore the POSTERS agreed to nothing, and the OWNERS are really just EXPLOITERS.

if you let us post but do not post yourself, you "eat" the information we produce, but dont produce yourself. You would be quite literally a parasite, and in communist terminology: a CAPITALIST. Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

Free market creates suffering because in free market capital decides. People dont decide anything. If I would have a say, I would have the ability to post outside OI. But everytme I apply for the unrestriction the answer is: "we would like to take you, but you have no say on this, because you do not pay the website.". Therefore, capital decided for me that I am not to post outside OI. The laws of the capital are not thinking, and therefore not HUMANE.

Read Marx's das kapital. It is an entire book that solely points out how capitalism is full of mistakes, totalitarianism and unethical prioritizing.

The reason why information slaves are slaves, is because they have little choice over the exact terms of how they POST. They MUST do what capitalists tell them to, or they will ban them from the website.

The point was that website OWNERS are not needed to run a WEBSITE. "POSTERS" are. Yet who is it that takes all the products of that website, and lets no needy man use it?

(Thanks for NecroCommie, where most of the initial retarded rethoric was based of)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hey WHEN did i become restricted?
Far later than you should have, in my opinion.

But since the CC has perpetrated such a great, unforgivable injustice against you, I suggest that you show your righteous indignation and protest by leaving this disgusting forum and denying us authoritarian scum the undeserved privilege of reading your enlightened analysis.

[Sarah Palin]

actually, that doesn't sound fair at all

By what right do YOU CAPITALISTS EXPLOIT ME of my COLLECTIVE RIGHT to post in any damn thread i like?

Why do you "LANDOWNERS" think you can forbid me of my NEED to post ouside OI?

This whole website is a means of production: a means of producing and discussing information regarding communism. Why do you think you can PRIVATIZE the rules to the COLLECTIVE? To FORBID the rest of the members to have a say in the way THIS "FACTORY" is run? Just because the original founding fathers of this website voted that way, or some ELITE now gets to vote, why doesn't the MAJORITY vote for it DEMOCRATICALLY?

We website posters don't have money to pay for our website ourselves. If we did we would be website OWNERS. You REALLY need to learn the concept of INFORMATION SLAVERY. It is slavery, for one has to join a forum from a capitalist. If not, we will be deprived of information. Therefore the POSTERS agreed to nothing, and the OWNERS are really just EXPLOITERS.

if you let us post but do not post yourself, you "eat" the information we produce, but dont produce yourself. You would be quite literally a parasite, and in communist terminology: a CAPITALIST. Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

Free market creates suffering because in free market capital decides. People dont decide anything. If I would have a say, I would have the ability to post outside OI. But everytme I apply for the unrestriction the answer is: "we would like to take you, but you have no say on this, because you do not pay the website.". Therefore, capital decided for me that I am not to post outside OI. The laws of the capital are not thinking, and therefore not HUMANE.

Read Marx's das kapital. It is an entire book that solely points out how capitalism is full of mistakes, totalitarianism and unethical prioritizing.

The reason why information slaves are slaves, is because they have little choice over the exact terms of how they POST. They MUST do what capitalists tell them to, or they will ban them from the website.

The point was that website OWNERS are not needed to run a WEBSITE. "POSTERS" are. Yet who is it that takes all the products of that website, and lets no needy man use it?



Revleft is not a communist utopia. It is a website. Get over yourself.

[Havet]

Revleft is not a communist utopia. It is a website. Get over yourself.

oh the irony...

also


Far later than you should have, in my opinion.

But since the CC has perpetrated such a great, unforgivable injustice against you, I suggest that you show your righteous indignation and protest by leaving this disgusting forum and denying us authoritarian scum the undeserved privilege of reading your enlightened analysis.

Bite me. I'm not denying you of anything. I AM BEING DENIED OF something idiot. But i guess its more comfortable to live with the illusion of wanting to be a communist when actually you behave like a Capitalist when defending this website.

[CommunityBeliever]

in reply to hayenmill

Meh might as well leave this site all we do on here is waste time talking anyways :cool:

Personally I like your topics in science and I did not see any arguing there

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Communism does not require that every time a group of people meet to discuss something together, they must make the meeting open to anyone and everyone.


Bite me.
Your repertoire of insults is disappointingly limited.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nobody here is stopping you from finding another board to join, one more suited to your tastes, nor are they preventing you from starting one yourself.

[Rascolnikova]

actually, that doesn't sound fair at all

By what right do YOU CAPITALISTS EXPLOIT ME of my COLLECTIVE RIGHT to post in any damn thread i like?

Why do you "LANDOWNERS" think you can forbid me of my NEED to post ouside OI?

This whole website is a means of production: a means of producing and discussing information regarding communism. Why do you think you can PRIVATIZE the rules to the COLLECTIVE? To FORBID the rest of the members to have a say in the way THIS "FACTORY" is run? Just because the original founding fathers of this website voted that way, or some ELITE now gets to vote, why doesn't the MAJORITY vote for it DEMOCRATICALLY?

We website posters don't have money to pay for our website ourselves. If we did we would be website OWNERS. You REALLY need to learn the concept of INFORMATION SLAVERY. It is slavery, for one has to join a forum from a capitalist. If not, we will be deprived of information. Therefore the POSTERS agreed to nothing, and the OWNERS are really just EXPLOITERS.

if you let us post but do not post yourself, you "eat" the information we produce, but dont produce yourself. You would be quite literally a parasite, and in communist terminology: a CAPITALIST. Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

Free market creates suffering because in free market capital decides. People dont decide anything. If I would have a say, I would have the ability to post outside OI. But everytme I apply for the unrestriction the answer is: "we would like to take you, but you have no say on this, because you do not pay the website.". Therefore, capital decided for me that I am not to post outside OI. The laws of the capital are not thinking, and therefore not HUMANE.

Read Marx's das kapital. It is an entire book that solely points out how capitalism is full of mistakes, totalitarianism and unethical prioritizing.

Two things:

1) for someone in the process of asking others to read Marx, you have a pretty flagrant misuse of the term "exploitation" here.

2) you don't sound like a cappie in this quote.



The reason why information slaves are slaves, is because they have little choice over the exact terms of how they POST. They MUST do what capitalists tell them to, or they will ban them from the website.

That's fair. . .

The problem is this.
We're the other side. We don't have a vast propaganda machine over most of the world; we have a few corners here and there, including this small patch of internet. In order to have discussion of leftist views from a leftist perspective, we have to have some sort of membrane ensuring that we don't become diluted beyond recognition by the mainstream.

I'm pretty sure it says the same thing in the FAQ.



The point was that website OWNERS are not needed to run a WEBSITE. "POSTERS" are. Yet who is it that takes all the products of that website, and lets no needy man use it?
Actually, owners are needed to run a website, as long as the website requires material resources. Even moreseo, admins. Furthermore, you can still read just about all of it.


As for your threads, if there are active threads which you started and you would like to finish, a polite pm to the moderator of the forum they are currently in would likely result in them being moved to OI.


This is relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform


If you aren't a cappie, you should talk about it.

[Bud Struggle]

The problem is this.
We're the other side. We don't have a vast propaganda machine over most of the world;

You used to. :D

[Havet]

in reply to hayenmill

Meh might as well leave this site all we do on here is waste time talking anyways :cool:

Personally I like your topics in science and I did not see any arguing there

thank you




Communism does not require that every time a group of people meet to discuss something together, they must make the meeting open to anyone and everyone.

Your repertoire of insults is disappointingly limited.

Of course, but neither does a business or an individual with private property. So either you support private property or you give up private property and make this forum open to everyone.

And my insults are not dissapointing, i have achieved my objective, which was to make you waste time adressing them in the first place. Freedom of expression is so great, isn't it?




Nobody here is stopping you from finding another board to join, one more suited to your tastes, nor are they preventing you from starting one yourself.

That is right, nobody is stopping me. Then why do some communists here argue that the same alternatives do not apply for a worker in a free market?

"Nobody in this company is stopping you from finding another job to join, one more suited to your states, nor are we preventing you to start your own business yourself"

This rant i went through is more of a demonstration of the failure of some communist arguments rather than a personal criticism of the website.




Two things:

1) for someone in the process of asking others to read Marx, you have a pretty flagrant misuse of the term "exploitation" here.

2) you don't sound like a cappie in this quote.

3)That's fair. . .

The problem is this.
We're the other side. We don't have a vast propaganda machine over most of the world; we have a few corners here and there, including this small patch of internet. In order to have discussion of leftist views from a leftist perspective, we have to have some sort of membrane ensuring that we don't become diluted beyond recognition by the mainstream.

I'm pretty sure it says the same thing in the FAQ.

4)ctually, owners are needed to run a website, as long as the website requires material resources. Even moreseo, admins. Furthermore, you can still read just about all of it.


As for your threads, if there are active threads which you started and you would like to finish, a polite pm to the moderator of the forum they are currently in would likely result in them being moved to OI.


This is relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Platform)


If you aren't a cappie, you should talk about it.

1) I know, curiously enough as stated above, most of my arguments were based in NecroCommie's rethoric. It is no wonder ever since i came i spend like 3 weeks discussing exploitation. The way some communists use it here is very misleading.

2) I suppose that's a complement...

3) Many other websites, actually sympathetic of private property, also don't have a "vast propaganda machine all over the world" and yet they don't "restrict" and ENFORCE their PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS on posters, which is why my rant was a criticism of some arguments here rather than a personal criticism of the website.

4) If owners are NEEDED to RUN website and ADMINS to control it because it requires MATERIAL RESOURCES, then WHY do some communists argue that OWNERS in a business are NOT NEEDED to run it? Doesn't a business also include MATERIAL RESOURCES?

Anyway, i don't really care about ym threads, i'd rather have the freedom to make them. It's not like there's much to discuss left in them.

And the only way to prevent fascists from expressing their views here is precisely by enforcing property rights, which many members oppose.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course, but neither does a business or an individual with private property. So either you support private property or you give up private property and make this forum open to everyone.
You're insane. As I just said, you do not have to support private property in order to agree that people may carry out a conversation not open to everyone in the world.

Also, collective property over an object does not entail that the object in question is "open to everyone," either. The collective may democratically vote to exclude a person from use of that object. Which is precisely what happened to you.


That is right, nobody is stopping me. Then why do some communists here argue that the same alternatives do not apply for a worker in a free market?
It is possible to create a site or forum absolutely free. Finding another job or starting a business never comes at zero cost.

[Havet]

You're insane. As I just said, you do not have to support private property in order to agree that people may carry out a conversation not open to everyone in the world.

Also, collective property over an object does not entail that the object in question is "open to everyone," either. The collective may democratically vote to exclude a person from use of that object. Which is precisely what happened to you.

Nope, you need to support private property, because i am being subject to someone's private property (THE WEBSITE) and being excluded from some of its use (BY PROPERTY RIGHTS)

there was no democratic vote for this. Who voted for it? When was it voted? It is likely that at the time of the voting there wasnt a third of as many members as there now is. Maybe, to be DEMOCRACTIC, we should hold a vote between all members on this matter. otherwise, you're like DEFENDING A CONSTITUTION. "It is like this because it was voted and agreed upon like this on the first time".



It is possible to create a site or forum absolutely free. Finding another job or starting a business never comes at zero cost.

Maybe it is possible to create a forum absolutely free. I suppose THIS forum is the case?

Also, you surely have noticed the advertisements on the board, Please be aware that the advertisements are a necessary evil to cover the monthly running costs for our server. But you can easily remove it from your screens by donating $10 or more to RevLeft, learn more here.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You're insane. As I just said, you do not have to support private property in order to agree that people may carry out a conversation not open to everyone in the world.

Also, collective property over an object does not entail that the object in question is "open to everyone," either. The collective may democratically vote to exclude a person from use of that object. Which is precisely what happened to you.

To be fair, the collective didn't vote on anything; it was a self-appointed, self-perpetuated minority of the collective that voted. I agree with you generally, but not on that point. TBH there's no use in trying to equate online discussions to communism anyway. The whole thing is necessarily based on property rights and is undemocratic. Better to just say "internets is not communism, get over it".

[Bud Struggle]

Better to just say "internets is not communism, get over it".

Well, it been pretty much proven that "Communism" isn't Communism. Why should this be any different?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You're right, ECU. Besides, I think I'm done feeding the troll.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That is right, nobody is stopping me. Then why do some communists here argue that the same alternatives do not apply for a worker in a free market?

Because most workers have to find employment if they want a decent living. You don't have to be a member of a forum.


"Nobody in this company is stopping you from finding another job to join, one more suited to your states, nor are we preventing you to start your own business yourself"

This rant i went through is more of a demonstration of the failure of some communist arguments rather than a personal criticism of the website.

The situations are not analogous.


Maybe it is possible to create a forum absolutely free. I suppose THIS forum is the case?

Also, you surely have noticed the advertisements on the board, Please be aware that the advertisements are a necessary evil to cover the monthly running costs for our server. But you can easily remove it from your screens by donating $10 or more to RevLeft, learn more here.

That's the reality of running a discussion board with over a thousand active members in a capitalist society. Why do you find that so hard to grasp?

[Havet]

Because most workers have to find employment if they want a decent living. You don't have to be a member of a forum.

The situations are not analogous.

oh really?

I can leave forum at any time - Workers can leave Jobs at any time

I can look other forums for better information and discussion - Workers can join other jobs for a better livelihood

I can start my own forum at any time (WITH A COST) - workers can start their own business at any time (WITH A COST)

And people can make a business out of a forum as well. If it gets enough members, ads will be a good way of making money on the forum.


That's the reality of running a discussion board with over a thousand active members in a capitalist society. Why do you find that so hard to grasp?

you are replying to something else

kwisatz made a point that:

"It is possible to create a site or forum absolutely free. Finding another job or starting a business never comes at zero cost. "

to which i replied that THIS type of forums you have to pay for. he was trying to argue that a worker and a "poster" are different situations, when in fact they are very very similar.

So what does this have to do with a capitalist society? In any society making a server stay online has a cost. Now you can steal others to pay for that cost, or you can trade with other people.

also, to kwisatz: BITE ME. You are the troll. Stop escaping the necessity to think, the logic of my arguments and for once use REASON.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Hayenmill, shut the fuck up. This is a political board, people with certain politics post on certain political boards. Most forums just ban people who register solely to disagree and debate an opposing view, Revleft on the other hand has a whole forum dedicated to people who disagree with revolutionary leftist politics, so be happy that your at least in OI. Get over yourself and either leave Revleft or continue to post in OI, (like you yourself claim) which you rarely posted outside of anyways.

[GPDP]

Goddamn it, hayenmill, just shut up already. I was trying to be nice in explaining why you were restricted, but you gotta make it hard, don't you?

This forum is not representative of a communist society. If we were to apply communist principles here (and we can't even if we desired to, seeing as we still need to operate within a capitalist framework of needing someone to own the website in order for it to exist), then what space would we have to discuss amongst ourselves and ONLY amongst ourselves in a wide variety of issues? We'd have fuckers like Nazis coming in here and screwing around with us, which we ALWAYS get. Would you argue we not restrict them, let alone ban them, because our commie principles dictate free access to EVERYONE?

I suspect you're either trolling, or you take this shit WAAAAAAAAAAAY too seriously, and either way, I think you need to go outside or something, and find something more productive to do with your life other than being a HARDCORE INTERNET CAPITALIST WARRIOR if this shit riles you up so much.

tl;dr: stfu

[Havet]

Hayenmill, shut the fuck up. This is a political board, people with certain politics post on certain political boards. Most forums just ban people who register solely to disagree and debate an opposing view, Revleft on the other hand has a whole forum dedicated to people who disagree with revolutionary leftist politics, so be happy that your at least in OI. Get over yourself and either leave Revleft or continue to post in OI, (like you yourself claim) which you rarely posted outside of anyways.

So you justify enforcing property rights because at least you give a chance for dissenters to post?

By the same logic, you could justify fascism: "This is a fascist country, people which agree with our ideas live here. Most fascist countries just kill people who have different ideas, but WE on the other hand let you stay on this nice little CAGE/GULAG/CONCENTRATION CAMP (but you wouldnt say it like that, you'd say: We on the other hand have a whole infrastructure dedicated to people who disagree with our political views, so be happy that we ACTUALLY DON'T KILL YOU). "


Goddamn it, hayenmill, just shut up already. I was trying to be nice in explaining why you were restricted, but you gotta make it hard, don't you?

This forum is not representative of a communist society. If we were to apply communist principles here (and we can't even if we desired to, seeing as we still need to operate within a capitalist framework of needing someone to own the website in order for it to exist), then what space would we have to discuss amongst ourselves and ONLY amongst ourselves in a wide variety of issues? We'd have fuckers like Nazis coming in here and screwing around with us, which we ALWAYS get. Would you argue we not restrict them, let alone ban them, because our commie principles dictate free access to EVERYONE?

I suspect you're either trolling, or you take this shit WAAAAAAAAAAAY too seriously, and either way, I think you need to go outside or something, and find something more productive to do with your life other than being a HARDCORE INTERNET CAPITALIST WARRIOR if this shit riles you up so much.

tl;dr: stfu

Damn that's the second shut up i've seen. I suppose it's hard to face the truth isn't it?

You are right, this forum IS NOT representative of a communist society. and i'm saying it SHOULD BE and it CAN BE. If you people were not too lazy and hypocritical you could:

-Get rid of the "owner dilema" by collectivizing the website. Every member pays a small fee so ads are no longer necessary, and since everyone pays, everyone has a say on it, which means everyone gets to VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY, unlike now where a small elite pays for it and exclusively has the say on how things are run. If you want to do this in a factory, why not do it HERE AS WELL?
-By having these barrier to entry, it is likely you would have LESS DISSENTERS (who would pay to troll?) and could further engage in your fantasy talk. Therefore, no assertion of property rights would be needed (unless of course, the assertion of COLLECTIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, but thats another scrambled rethoric to discuss some other time)

Just because you live in a Capitalist Society doesn't mean you have to act like it to SPREAD the message. Follow my advices or stop having the website at all. I can't even believe how you people can live with the hypocrisy.

As for your nazi example, if you had a collective factory, would you DISCRIMINATE on employing someone based on their ideological views? But then you are going against people's freedom of holding views that are against your own, and to enforce such discrimination would mean going against your policies and social struggles for workers that have been happening since the 20th century.

Am i taking this way too seriously? Sure, only because i hate seeing such idiocy in human beings. It's not like i have as an objective to "show how capitalism is better", i'm just showing how YOU are FLAWED in your PRACTICES.

Also, i'll take that tl;dr as intelectual lazyness which i was already expecting coming from someone who is too hypocritical to practice what they preach, let alone understand why what they are preaching is already wrong.

[Havet]

This thread is for you to ask about your restriction or protest a restriction you feel was unfair, within the rules of the board. This is not a thread for you to whine that the moderating team/admins/CC are all really, really mean or that our restriction policy is wrong or "oppresive".

I apologize that i have only seen this now. I will stop arguing here why this restriction policy is hypocritical and will continue the debate in OI. For whoever is interested in arguing with me please see the thread in OI

[mykittyhasaboner]

So you justify enforcing property rights because at least you give a chance for dissenters to post?

By the same logic, you could justify fascism: "This is a fascist country, people which agree with our ideas live here. Most fascist countries just kill people who have different ideas, but WE on the other hand let you stay on this nice little CAGE/GULAG/CONCENTRATION CAMP (but you wouldnt say it like that, you'd say: We on the other hand have a whole infrastructure dedicated to people who disagree with our political views, so be happy that we ACTUALLY DON'T KILL YOU). "



Are you clinically insane? If so please let me know so I can put this in the proper context: This is not a country, it is a small "patch of internet" as someone said earlier, that is for revolutionary leftists. If you think we are oppressing you or something because we don't let you post on the whole site then why did you never usually leave OI in the first place?

Oh and stop it with the property rights, that is the most hypocritical thing you've said so far; when the hell have I ever seen you post anything that doesn't have to do with defending free-markets and private property? Almost never.


"This is a leftist BB (a private place), so please hold on with pathetic speeches about freedom of speech now.2 - Edelweiss

Oh the irony...

The only thing that is ironic here is your diatribe about your restriction.

[Bud Struggle]

No offense. But the rules were listed here before anyone joined and are fairly explicit as to who may or may not participate on the RevLeft boards. There are occasional circumstances where I believe the rules might be applied unfairly--but not in most cases.

[Havet]

Are you clinically insane? If so please let me know so I can put this in the proper context: This is not a country, it is a small "patch of internet" as someone said earlier, that is for revolutionary leftists. If you think we are oppressing you or something because we don't let you post on the whole site then why did you never usually leave OI in the first place?

Because I, unlike you, RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS. I am only making a fuss about this because people here are against the very thing that makes RevLeft possible without being a hell in every thread.

What does it matter if its a country or a patch of internet? The same principles apply, and the same alternatives communists propose are doable on the internet.


Oh and stop it with the property rights, that is the most hypocritical thing you've said so far; when the hell have I ever seen you post anything that doesn't have to do with defending free-markets and private property? Almost never.

The most hypocritical thing is that you people still insist in not practicing what you think in your own "home".

I defend free markets from a mutualist/agorist/anarchist point of view. Markets include individual property and collective property, two types of private property. When i am defending free markets i am defending the "right" of an individual to own property and the right of a collective to own property. That's all it matters.


The only thing that is ironic here is your diatribe about your restriction.

The irony is still on you (http://www.revleft.com/vb/irony-lost-youi-t110024/index.html?t=110024&highlight=irony+lost)

[danyboy27]

Because I, unlike you, RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS. I am only making a fuss about this because people here are against the very thing that makes RevLeft possible without being a hell in every thread.

What does it matter if its a country or a patch of internet? The same principles apply, and the same alternatives communists propose are doable on the internet.



The most hypocritical thing is that you people still insist in not practicing what you think in your own "home".

I defend free markets from a mutualist/agorist/anarchist point of view. Markets include individual property and collective property, two types of private property. When i am defending free markets i am defending the "right" of an individual to own property and the right of a collective to own property. That's all it matters.



The irony is still on you (http://www.revleft.com/vb/irony-lost-youi-t110024/index.html?t=110024&highlight=irony+lost)
http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

seriously man, get over it. many people tried to get unlocked this way before and it failed. my tip: wait, or start enjoying the OI.

Personally i think you are a great addition to our collection of unjustly jailed communist, its always interesting to have new people around:D

Personally i am grateful of all that marginalisation about various futile ideology divergeances, it mean more people in the Oi, more idea to share :D

[Sam_b]

I think Hayenmill should move to the Gaza strip and then he can talk about this messageboard 'denying' his 'freedoms'.

[Havet]

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

seriously man, get over it. many people tried to get unlocked this way before and it failed. my tip: wait, or start enjoying the OI.

Personally i think you are a great addition to our collection of unjustly jailed communist, its always interesting to have new people around:D

Personally i am grateful of all that marginalisation about various futile ideology divergeances, it mean more people in the Oi, more idea to share :D

i'm not fussing anymore about my restriction, i'm fussing about the hypocrisy behind the restriction policies.

I actually don't mind OI. Its the place with least retarded people in this whole forum.

[Havet]

I think Hayenmill should move to the Gaza strip and then he can talk about this messageboard 'denying' his 'freedoms'.

I dont mind voluntarily restricting my freedoms when entering PRIVATE PROPERTY. And i wouldnt mind it in this website, but i am making a big deal out of this because the members thin PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST PLACE, which is complete "not practicing what they preach" idiocy.

And what does being in a place oppressed by a military invading country like Israel have anything to do with denying freedoms? Are you comparing revleft to israel? I dont think that comparison is right because revleft didnt invade any "previously occupied space", revleft is just claiming property rights, when they could still manage their website with "more fair" property rights (examples above) and not coming out as idiots for believing something but not practicing it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dont mind voluntarily restricting my freedoms when entering PRIVATE PROPERTY. And i wouldnt mind it in this website, but i am making a big deal out of this because the members thin PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST PLACE, which is complete "not practicing what they preach" idiocy.

If we "practiced what we preached" we'd be swamped with trolls and idiots. It's a matter of practicality - are you going to have a whinge at us because not all of us can dumpster dive in order to eat? Because lifestylism is the ultimate result of your exhortations.

That's the reality of running a message board in a capitalist society. Doubtless if we lived in a communist society things would be different. You should be fucking grateful we even have a subforum for opposing ideologies.


And what does being in a place oppressed by a military invading country like Israel have anything to do with denying freedoms? Are you comparing revleft to israel? I dont think that comparison is right because revleft didnt invade any "previously occupied space", revleft is just claiming property rights, when they could still manage their website with "more fair" property rights (examples above) and not coming out as idiots for believing something but not practicing it.

I currently have neither the money nor the means (no bank account, see) to spare cash for the running of this forum, and I'm willing to tolerate advertisements in order to cover the running costs. I doubt I'm the only one.

Have you also considered that members may also already be contributing what little spare time, energy and money they have to political organisations that do real work and activism outside the internet? I'm sure your Internet Freedom Warrior act is most amusing to such people. It certainly is to me.

[Havet]

If we "practiced what we preached" we'd be swamped with trolls and idiots. It's a matter of practicality - are you going to have a whinge at us because not all of us can dumpster dive in order to eat? Because lifestylism is the ultimate result of your exhortations.

That's the reality of running a message board in a capitalist society. Doubtless if we lived in a communist society things would be different. You should be fucking grateful we even have a subforum for opposing ideologies.


I currently have neither the money nor the means (no bank account, see) to spare cash for the running of this forum, and I'm willing to tolerate advertisements in order to cover the running costs. I doubt I'm the only one.

Have you also considered that members may also already be contributing what little spare time, energy and money they have to political organisations that do real work and activism outside the internet? I'm sure your Internet Freedom Warrior act is most amusing to such people. It certainly is to me.

obviously you didn't read my posts:

You are right, this forum IS NOT representative of a communist society. and i'm saying it SHOULD BE and it CAN BE. If you people were not too lazy and hypocritical you could:

-Get rid of the "owner dilema" by collectivizing the website. Every member pays a small fee so ads are no longer necessary, and since everyone pays, everyone has a say on it, which means everyone gets to VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY, unlike now where a small elite pays for it and exclusively has the say on how things are run. If you want to do this in a factory, why not do it HERE AS WELL?
-By having these barrier to entry, it is likely you would have LESS DISSENTERS (who would pay to troll?) and could further engage in your fantasy talk. Therefore, no assertion of property rights would be needed (unless of course, the assertion of COLLECTIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, but thats another scrambled rethoric to discuss some other time)

Just because you live in a Capitalist Society doesn't mean you have to act like it to SPREAD the message. Follow my advices or stop having the website at all. I can't even believe how you people can live with the hypocrisy.

You don't have a bank account? Well how about the fees can be payed without money? How about trading services for the website in exchange for fees? This could solve the problem of those who cannot pay the fee but want to join the website and still contribute to its maintenance. However, since the costs would be shared by all, the prices would also drop considerably.

Btw, whats with the "internet warrior freedom act"? I'm merely showing how you guys, in some actions, do not act like you want to force others to act (factory owners). These types of situations aren't uncommon though. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/coal-ship-boarded-t111625/index.html?p=1474173#post1474173)

Anyway the message is IT DOESNT MATTER if you are in a communist society or in a capitalist society, because you can run a forum website in a communist manner in both societies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

obviously you didn't read my posts:

You are right, this forum IS NOT representative of a communist society. and i'm saying it SHOULD BE and it CAN BE.

Why? Discussion is the purpose of this forum. If we wanted to "test pilot" a new society it would be far more informative and germane to do such a thing offline in the real world - after all, the cost of copying data is miniscule relative to the cost of reproducing physical goods.


If you people were not too lazy and hypocritical you could:

-Get rid of the "owner dilema" by collectivizing the website. Every member pays a small fee so ads are no longer necessary, and since everyone pays, everyone has a say on it, which means everyone gets to VOTE DEMOCRATICALLY, unlike now where a small elite pays for it and exclusively has the say on how things are run. If you want to do this in a factory, why not do it HERE AS WELL?The only privilege the "small elite" get for donating is a lack of ads. I'm a CC member and a global moderator, making me part of the board's hierarchy, yet I have not donated a penny.


-By having these barrier to entry, it is likely you would have LESS DISSENTERS (who would pay to troll?) and could further engage in your fantasy talk. Therefore, no assertion of property rights would be needed (unless of course, the assertion of COLLECTIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, but thats another scrambled rethoric to discuss some other time)I prefer the current system, where the only barriers to entry are ideological.


Just because you live in a Capitalist Society doesn't mean you have to act like it to SPREAD the message.What do you mean, "act like it"? You're the one saying that we should make people pay money before they can have a say in how the board is run!


Follow my advices or stop having the website at all.Make us. :ohmy:


I can't even believe how you people can live with the hypocrisy.I can't believe how you think making people pay to have a say is somehow "less capitalist". Donations are entirely voluntary.


You don't have a bank account? Well how about the fees can be payed without money? How about trading services for the website in exchange for fees? This could solve the problem of those who cannot pay the fee but want to join the website and still contribute to its maintenance. However, since the costs would be shared by all, the prices would also drop considerably. Well, I'm not privy to the accounts, but the website's still going strong, so I'd say the current system is working well enough for our purposes.


Btw, whats with the "internet warrior freedom act"? I'm merely showing how you guys, in some actions, do not act like you want to force others to act (factory owners). These types of situations aren't uncommon though. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/coal-ship-boarded-t111625/index.html?p=1474173#post1474173)Two "actions" out of however many, and you think it's "not uncommon"?


Anyway the message is IT DOESNT MATTER if you are in a communist society or in a capitalist society, because you can run a forum website in a communist manner in both societies.I think you'll find that it does matter.

[Havet]

Why? Discussion is the purpose of this forum. If we wanted to "test pilot" a new society it would be far more informative and germane to do such a thing offline in the real world - after all, the cost of copying data is miniscule relative to the cost of reproducing physical goods.

It's not about testing, it's about PRACTICING WHAT YOU PREACH. Its about actively doing what you think is better. Its about being CONSISTENT. Start applying the same principles in the closest things to you and then project that onto the real world. This includes the forum, of course.


The only privilege the "small elite" get for donating is a lack of ads. I'm a CC member and a global moderator, making me part of the board's hierarchy, yet I have not donated a penny.The point of collectivizing is not to just remove ads, but for each member to contribute to the costs of making the server stay up, leveling down individual costs, and for them to have an EQUAL say in the way the website is run. This current system propagates the elites power, and i dont mean donating to website, i mean real physical server costs that are paid by a few and they use that excuse to be the ones who can "own" the website and they get to decide every policy about it, when it should be the posters deciding by DEMOCRATIC VOTE.


I prefer the current system, where the only barriers to entry are ideological. and hypocritical. my alternative is much more cost effective, would leave moderators with less of a hassle. Also you wouldnt need to engage in property rights enforcement by restricting people to a special forum.


What do you mean, "act like it"? You're the one saying that we should make people pay money before they can have a say in how the board is run! EVERYONE PAYS MONEY, EVERYONE HAS AN EQUAL VOICE ON HOW THE WEBSITE IS RUN = COMMUNISM

If the server was free, then money wouldnt be needed. But since there's a cost, shouldnt it be supported by everyone who uses it and thus spreading the power over the website to the MAJORITY?


I can't believe how you think making people pay to have a say is somehow "less capitalist". Donations are entirely voluntary.the PURPOSE of MAKING PEOPLE PAY is, like i said above, for EVERYONE to share the COSTS of keeping the website up and permitting THE MAJORITY/MEMBERS to have an EQUAL SAY in how this forum is RUN and MANAGED. Pure communist ideals.


Well, I'm not privy to the accounts, but the website's still going strong, so I'd say the current system is working well enough for our purposes. its working well enough for the purposes of the ELITE which use the excuse of paying for the server as a way to enforce their policies and AGENDA that most members might not even agree with.


Two "actions" out of however many, and you think it's "not uncommon"? they are not uncommon just because i provided two examples. I just dont have the time to show how many preachers of contradictions live their lives in hypocrisy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not about testing, it's about PRACTICING WHAT YOU PREACH. Its about actively doing what you think is better. Its about being CONSISTENT. Start applying the same principles in the closest things to you and then project that onto the real world. This includes the forum, of course.

Being a revolutionary leftist is about trying to change society - if setting up cooperative ventures was all it took, capitalism would be long gone. Nor is consistency in and of itself a virtue.


The point of collectivizing is not to just remove ads, but for each member to contribute to the costs of making the server stay up, leveling down individual costs, and for them to have an EQUAL say in the way the website is run.Costs are covered by advertisements and donations, and the CC gets a say in how the board is run. The objective - a place of discussion for revolutionary leftists - is being achieved. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Also, what's to stop some massive cappie/fascist/whatever forum from "buying us out" in your plan? For a website like Stormfront with many more members than us (and goodness knows they don't have anything better to do) it would be trivial for them to gain a majority, and those bastards would sure love to fuck with us.


This current system propagates the elites power, and i dont mean donating to website, i mean real physical server costs that are paid by a few and they use that excuse to be the ones who can "own" the website and they get to decide every policy about it, when it should be the posters deciding by DEMOCRATIC VOTE.You have no idea how things actually work here, do you? Malte/Edelweiss is the owner of this site, but the vast majority of policy decisions are made by the CC. You can apply for CC membership after a certain amount of time and after having made a certain amount of posts deemed to be of sufficient quality. No cash required. This is of course assuming you're not restricted.

Of course, the CC used to be just a private area where dedicated members could chat in relative peace, but since then it's membership has developed it into what we have today.


and hypocritical. my alternative is much more cost effective, would leave moderators with less of a hassle. Also you wouldnt need to engage in property rights enforcement by restricting people to a special forum.It's also hideously complicated for a forum with over a thousand active members, subject to abuse and just plain unnecessary.


EVERYONE PAYS MONEY, EVERYONE HAS AN EQUAL VOICE ON HOW THE WEBSITE IS RUN = COMMUNISMThere's no such thing as money under communism, silly.


If the server was free, then money wouldnt be needed. But since there's a cost, shouldnt it be supported by everyone who uses it and thus spreading the power over the website to the MAJORITY?The only person complaining about the current arrangement is you.


the PURPOSE of MAKING PEOPLE PAY is, like i said above, for EVERYONE to share the COSTS of keeping the website up and permitting THE MAJORITY/MEMBERS to have an EQUAL SAY in how this forum is RUN and MANAGED. Pure communist ideals.The website is ticking along nicely - I'm sure if the site falls on hard times Malte will bang the slop bucket and we'll scrape together what we can, but that hasn't been necessary as far as I can remember. As for the rest, the way we currently run things is borne out of experience, and if the site's growth is anything to go by, we're at least heading in vaguely the right direction. Most of our membership has more important things to worry about, apart from you it seems.


its working well enough for the purposes of the ELITE which use the excuse of paying for the server as a way to enforce their policies and AGENDA that most members might not even agree with.There you go with that "elite" rubbish again. I'm not an elite. I participate in the administration and general running of this forum because A) I want to and B) the CC decided I was fit for the task. I can be recalled if the CC thinks I've stepped out of line, and I would have no choice but to acquiesce to such a decision if it was made.

[Il Medico]

I think Hayenmill should move to the Gaza strip and then he can talk about this messageboard 'denying' his 'freedoms'.
OH MY GOD!!! That is very scary, you sound like my dad. His response every time I bring up issues regarding class oppression is "go see if you can say this type of stuff in China.!" I do see what you are saying though.

[F9]

Stop feeding the troll please!Hayenmill the case is closed you are restricted, if you keep spamming this thread you will receive warning points.End of story..


i'm not fussing anymore about my restriction, i'm fussing about the hypocrisy behind the restriction policies.

I actually don't mind OI. Its the place with least retarded people in this whole forum.

Issued a warning point for prejudice language

[Havet]

Being a revolutionary leftist is about trying to change society - if setting up cooperative ventures was all it took, capitalism would be long gone. Nor is consistency in and of itself a virtue.

So you admit that people here are inconsistent and what only matters is people forcing owners to give up their property while revleft owners still keep their ownership of the website?


Costs are covered by advertisements and donations, and the CC gets a say in how the board is run. The objective - a place of discussion for revolutionary leftists - is being achieved. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

The CC gets a say, but Non-CC members don't get any say. Why fix it? It's inconsistent with your beliefs, and hypocritical.


Also, what's to stop some massive cappie/fascist/whatever forum from "buying us out" in your plan? For a website like Stormfront with many more members than us (and goodness knows they don't have anything better to do) it would be trivial for them to gain a majority, and those bastards would sure love to fuck with us. Whats to stop them from already joining, pretending to be a leftist and then taking over? It takes time to do that, but with money you actually have to act, to produce, to work, to have a job or to trade something. More work for them, less chance they come here. If its that much of a problem, consider raising costs of management artificially so as make them think twice before entering.

by the way, stormfront is a forum? like openly fascists or something?


You have no idea how things actually work here, do you? Malte/Edelweiss is the owner of this site, but the vast majority of policy decisions are made by the CC. You can apply for CC membership after a certain amount of time and after having made a certain amount of posts deemed to be of sufficient quality. No cash required. This is of course assuming you're not restricted.

Of course, the CC used to be just a private area where dedicated members could chat in relative peace, but since then it's membership has developed it into what we have today.

And why dont policy decisions are voted democratically by everyone: the initial owner, the CC and the other members?


It's also hideously complicated for a forum with over a thousand active members, subject to abuse and just plain unnecessary.

Its not really that complicated, its certainly more complicated having moderators going around examining every new member to see if they are a right-winger or not and then restricting them, and then having to endure their protests (hehe), etc.


There's no such thing as money under communism, silly.

you're evading the point. but ok.

EVERYONE SHARES THE COSTS, EVERYONE HAS AN EQUAL VOICE ON HOW THE WEBSITE IS RUN = COMMUNISM


The only person complaining about the current arrangement is you.

Don't be dishonest. You know damn well there are many other people, in the past and at present who protest current restriction policies. Are you really going to make me digg around for older posts to prove it to you?


The website is ticking along nicely - I'm sure if the site falls on hard times Malte will bang the slop bucket and we'll scrape together what we can, but that hasn't been necessary as far as I can remember. As for the rest, the way we currently run things is borne out of experience, and if the site's growth is anything to go by, we're at least heading in vaguely the right direction. Most of our membership has more important things to worry about, apart from you it seems.

Sure its ticking along nicely, for those who actually run the website. But the rest of us are subject to the whims whatever the actual owners decide. Wouldnt it be better and fairer to let everyone have an equal say, a real vote, on every matter in this website? EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.


There you go with that "elite" rubbish again. I'm not an elite. I participate in the administration and general running of this forum because A) I want to and B) the CC decided I was fit for the task. I can be recalled if the CC thinks I've stepped out of line, and I would have no choice but to acquiesce to such a decision if it was made.

well you are an elite because you have privileged access to the policies that manage this website, contrary to most members.

[GPDP]

DEAL WITH IT, NERD.

goddamn

[Havet]

DEAL WITH IT, NERD.

goddamn

why does this bother you so much? just ignore me already.

And i can't really deal with it, can I? It's up to you, the elites, to decide whether or not my proposals should be tried.

[danyboy27]

OH MY GOD!!! That is very scary, you sound like my dad. His response every time I bring up issues regarding class oppression is "go see if you can say this type of stuff in China.!" I do see what you are saying though.

maybe he is your dad...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you admit that people here are inconsistent and what only matters is people forcing owners to give up their property while revleft owners still keep their ownership of the website?

Were we in any position to "force people to give up their property" there wouldn't be a need for this website, since in such a case the working class would have achieved some kind of power and we'd have a lot more pressing things to worry about than a damn website!


The CC gets a say, but Non-CC members don't get any say. Why fix it? It's inconsistent with your beliefs, and hypocritical.It's not "inconsistent with our beliefs" because Revleft is not society! Being a member of this forum is entirely optional and voluntary, unlike being a member of society.


Whats to stop them from already joining, pretending to be a leftist and then taking over?Because they're too dumb to get past the "pretending to be a leftist" stage. That's the entire point of requiring prospective CC members to have been here for a certain amount of time and to have made a certain amount of posts. Even smart fascists are only human, and will slip up and/or give themselves away sooner or later.


It takes time to do that, but with money you actually have to act, to produce, to work, to have a job or to trade something. More work for them, less chance they come here. If its that much of a problem, consider raising costs of management artificially so as make them think twice before entering.I really don't understand this, don't you get it? Charging money for participating in this site would be the capitalist thing to do. Sheesh. You'd be effectively denying our poorest members of the chance of participating in the board's administration. Don't give me that rubbish about offering services - would you trust some random stranger on the internet to do something for you? If you would, you're more naive than I thought you were.


by the way, stormfront is a forum? like openly fascists or something?Yes to both. Racists too. A vile place.


And why dont policy decisions are voted democratically by everyone: the initial owner, the CC and the other members?Because this is a discussion forum, not a political party.


Its not really that complicated, its certainly more complicated having moderators going around examining every new member to see if they are a right-winger or not and then restricting them, and then having to endure their protests (hehe), etc.It's easier than it looks. I'm only discussing the issue with you because I think you genuinely don't understand as opposed to deliberately stirring shit.


you're evading the point. but ok.

EVERYONE SHARES THE COSTS, EVERYONE HAS AN EQUAL VOICE ON HOW THE WEBSITE IS RUN = COMMUNISMThere's more to communism than "having an equal say", for a start.


Don't be dishonest. You know damn well there are many other people, in the past and at present who protest current restriction policies. Are you really going to make me digg around for older posts to prove it to you?Yes, why is it almost always the restricted members who whine about being restricted? I wonder...


Sure its ticking along nicely, for those who actually run the website. But the rest of us are subject to the whims whatever the actual owners decide. Wouldnt it be better and fairer to let everyone have an equal say, a real vote, on every matter in this website? EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.There's something you forget - merit. Simply having the money to contribute towards the running of the site is not enough. That's why we have the posting requirements.


well you are an elite because you have privileged access to the policies that manage this website, contrary to most members.Participating in the administration of this forum is a responsibility (albeit a relatively small one), not a privilege.

[Havet]

Were we in any position to "force people to give up their property" there wouldn't be a need for this website, since in such a case the working class would have achieved some kind of power and we'd have a lot more pressing things to worry about than a damn website!

...

I'll reply to this via PM so as to now spam this thread any longer.

[GPDP]

If RevLeft were ever to switch towards a paid subscription system, I would leave, as would many, many other posters. Seriously, what a terrible idea. And not just because most of us would not be able to afford it. Bottom line is, that is exactly how you isolate a community on the internet, and stifle its growth. Wanna see real elitism? Switch to paid subscription.

And trolling will not go away, even in a paid subscription system. Case in point (http://www.somethingawful.com/).

hope u got 10bux

[Bud Struggle]

If RevLeft were ever to switch towards a paid subscription system, I would leave, as would many, many other posters. Seriously, what a terrible idea. And not just because most of us would not be able to afford it. Bottom line is, that is exactly how you isolate a community on the internet, and stifle its growth. Wanna see real elitism? Switch to paid subscription.

And trolling will not go away, even in a paid subscription system. Case in point (http://www.somethingawful.com/).

hope u got 10bux


I agree.

[F9]

stop!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Trashed the spam. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but don't do it again.

[EvigLidelse]

I'm gonna keep this short, this is my second try.

I was restricted a year ago during my right-wing libertarian Milton Friedman ass licking period, a period which I now reckon for what it was - ignorant and naive. I was called a vulgar libertarian back then, and I now finally understand the truth in those words. I therefore call for an unrestriction to be able to take part in the real discussion of this board. The fact that I'm still restricted is nearly an insult to me, whether or not it depends on admin laziness or misinformation of my vice I do not know.

I therefore urge you to test me and discuss with me until I have gotten my point proven, I am not longer the person you restricted - and I hope you will understand that in time.

[Kronos]

You must answer this questionnaire before being permitted to participate.

1. Are you willing to pretend that Kronos's post-structural analysis of political text and ideology has not proved that none of it is a discrete whole, but narratives containing irreconcilable and contradictory meanings, making all of it incomplete nonsense?

2. Are you willing to pretend that men are equal, that rights are derived from the state, and that without the incentive to own private property, a proletarian class will not become discouraged, stagnant, and miserable?

3. Are you willing to pretend that Hegel's concept of history and the "absolute system" which permeated all aspects of Continental rationalist philosophy during the industrial age was not handed back to him in a body bag by Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche?

If you answered "no" to any of these, then you belong here with me. I'm where the party's at.

My only apology is that the capitalists of the OI are too simple even to debate with.

[yuon]

EvigLidelse, you are now a leftist? A socialist even?

Can you point to posts that demonstrate this?

If I understand the restriction policy correctly (and I may not), that should be sufficient. If you can't point to posts demonstrating your political beliefs, then I suggest making some.

[danyboy27]

EvigLidelse, you are now a leftist? A socialist even?

Can you point to posts that demonstrate this?

If I understand the restriction policy correctly (and I may not), that should be sufficient. If you can't point to posts demonstrating your political beliefs, then I suggest making some.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
no, it will not be enough, if for some obscure reason she-he pissed a lot of high ranking of the cc, she wont be able to get out.

[EvigLidelse]

EvigLidelse, you are now a leftist? A socialist even?

Can you point to posts that demonstrate this?

I don't like to call me a leftist or a rightist as I dislike the very idea of such a scale, but in your terms - yes , I presume I am a leftist. I do call myself a socialist though, as I believe in the workers rights to the fruits of their labour. I also support workers cooperatives over capitalist owned corporations since they relate much in the same way as democracy and dictatorship does, and I've accepted the principle of equal freedom as defined by Benjamin R. Tucker. I've also started to focus more on the freedom of workers rather than economic efficiency and the right to make lots of money (which obviously means big economic inequality in the long run).

As a mutualist, I believe the freedom rather than force is the way of reaching socialism. The problem in the current capitalism isn't the capitalism itself (private ownership of the means of production), but the states role in it (i.e the intervention in the "free" market that the corporatistic state-capitalism of today is based upon). Tucker called these the big four: patents, the land monopoly, the money monopoly and tariffs. Especially patents have a tendency to cause big economic inequality, since I find them to be the very root to capitalist ownership of the means of production as well as large businesses and multinationals. Patents are also a big incentive for private ownership of the means of production.

Enough? ;)

[Havet]

I don't like to call me a leftist or a rightist as I dislike the very idea of such a scale, but in your terms - yes , I presume I am a leftist. I do call myself a socialist though, as I believe in the workers rights to the fruits of their labour. I also support workers cooperatives over capitalist owned corporations since they relate much in the same way as democracy and dictatorship does, and I've accepted the principle of equal freedom as defined by Benjamin R. Tucker. I've also started to focus more on the freedom of workers rather than economic efficiency and the right to make lots of money (which obviously means big economic inequality in the long run).

As a mutualist, I believe the freedom rather than force is the way of reaching socialism. The problem in the current capitalism isn't the capitalism itself (private ownership of the means of production), but the states role in it (i.e the intervention in the "free" market that the corporatistic state-capitalism of today is based upon). Tucker called these the big four: patents, the land monopoly, the money monopoly and tariffs. Especially patents have a tendency to cause big economic inequality, since I find them to be the very root to capitalist ownership of the means of production as well as large businesses and multinationals. Patents are also a big incentive for private ownership of the means of production.

Enough? ;)

oh my god, that is pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well. Could it be...that i'm a MUTUALIST?

By the way EvigLidelse, what are your thoughts on counter-economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics)?

[EvigLidelse]

oh my god, that is pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well. Could it be...that i'm a MUTUALIST?

Well, mutualism and anarcho-capitalism share a lot of points (not assuming you're an anarcho-capitalist, but I know socialists tend to have a lot of prejudice against anarcho-capitalists). Disputes tend to be around land ownership, banks, rent etc.



By the way EvigLidelse, what are your thoughts on counter-economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics)?

I've never heard of it, but reading the introduction it seemed quite interesting. I don't want to share any thoughts about it.

[Sentinel]

I therefore urge you to test me and discuss with me until I have gotten my point proven, I am not longer the person you restricted - and I hope you will understand that in time.EvigLidelse, your 'case' is being discussed in the CC. Now you must wait for a little while -- these threads usually run for at least 10 days, sometimes longer.

By all means keep discussing issues in the OI until then, as that may increase your chance of getting unrestricted.

[Kronos]

Godammit, Sentinel. When are you gonna unrestrict me. Listen, I hate capitalists. HATE EM. They make me wanna smack my momma. What more do you want?

Please. You gotta let me outta here. I need to get into the philosophy forum and straighten shit out over there.

[Bud Struggle]

Kronos you will never be unrestricted.

I have it from the highest authority of the CC. You are and will always be --ONE OF US.

[Havet]

I've never heard of it, but reading the introduction it seemed quite interesting. I don't want to share any thoughts about it.

Sure, you don't have to share your thoughts on it.

[Ivhouse]

The fucking moderators are just a bunch of wanna be's, they created this bullshit site not to listen but to dictate and allow only one point of view and no one can deviate from their ideology, just like all the other communist countries dictators and you can see the evidence of their success.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Apparently I've been restricted because of "anti-worker" sentiments? I'm confused about this. Also, restricting someone without even informing them about what's going on? That's like a trial without me being represented.

I assume it's because I'm regularly unclear in my writing and people jump at the opportunity to restrict people based on anything. This is what I think is the cause:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/history-morality-t112906/index.html?t=112906

I was making a distinction between poor based on material resources and poor based on educational opportunities.

Person X has 10,000 dollars that properly invested could get them out of poverty.
Person Y has 1,000 dollars that properly invested could "not" get them out of poverty.

I was saying that a large percent of poor in "Western" countries are poor because they are not provided the opportunities that come with education. The values of a good education are also not stressed in their communities.

An uneducated person is not going to come out of poverty simply because they have the resources that would allow an educated person to succeed. There are more than material resources that cause someone to live in poverty.

Essentially, I apparently called the working class "stupid." If uneducated means stupid, then I do think they're stupid. By the way, being uneducated doesn't make you stupid (in case you didn't realize that). That's factually true. The working class is uneducated, and a "proper" education promotes the ability to invest and acquiring wealth within the current capitalist social structure.

As for my point about who to blame. If someone is poor because they have no education, and they have no education because of capitalism, I think it's arbitrary to blame anyway. The capitalist was born into the system the same as anyone else. It's simply the system that is to blame. Not the people.

When I wrote that, I thought it was relatively clear what I meant. When I read someone's post, I assume they are rational and just. I interpret their post favorably according to that end. It seems nobody else does the same, and I will need to attempt my wording more carefully.

EDIT: Was thinking on my walk. "Real" poor was a bad choice of words. In terms of living conditions, all people who are financially in poverty are in a bad situation. I was merely trying to suggest that many of the Western poor, had they the educated, have the financial means to escape poverty by lack the human capital or knowledge to do so.

:( Sympathy arousal mechanism.

[ls]

I would have restricted you myself on the basis of:


A lot of people have the means to invest in an education. They are simply unwilling to forgo luxuries in order to finance that education.

Such a crappy post will only get you dismissed like you were.

[Sentinel]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, I have reopened the thread about you in the CC and posted a copy of your last post and a link to this thread in it.

Kronos, why were you restricted again?

[Bud Struggle]

Dooga's a first rate poster and Commie--he shouldn't be restricted IMHO.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I never said they should be "expected" to give up those luxuries. It's fine if they don't want to do so. They shouldn't have to do so. However, in the system we live under, it's often a choice of either give up luxuries or give up opportunities, in terms of education.

A lot of people live beyond their means, including the poor. There are poor who could afford an education if they invested their money properly. There are poor who can't. Do they know about proper investing? No, it's society's responsibility to ensure citizens are educated.

In the Western world, how many poor people don't have things like cable television? That's not a necessity. They deserve access to entertainment, sure. When I grew up, I knew a lot of people living in poverty. They didn't give up all luxuries. Some poor people do. They didn't.

Do the rich show the same restraint or better restraint? No. I never made any points about the rich. I don't see why I need to qualify statements about the poor with statements about the rich. Some black people are stupid? Do I need to point out that some white people are also stupid, if I make a comment like that? No. The rich are more hypocritical than anyone. We exploit the earth causing environmental damage. Now as other nations develop, we tell them they need to be green. It's a human problem not limited to how much wealth someone has.

A lot of poor people don't work two jobs and make ends meet. A lot of poor people do. It's not an all or nothing issue. I know plenty of people who worked the bare minimum, didn't provide for their kids, and watched television the rest of the day.

Really, the poor are victims of their conditions. However, material conditions aren't everything. There are cultural conditions. A climate of fostering responsibility, for instance, both social and in the family. You need to stress the importance of education. Notice how racial issues aren't instantly solved in black communities by throwing money at them. There is a fundamental issue that capitalists are continually perpetuating the idea that black people can't get educations, et cetera. Sure, a hell of a lot of them can't. Some can but are told they're incapable. That's a separate problem.

Not everyone who is poor is some poor sap who would instantly succeed if only given some cash. It's the same old saying with teach a man to fish instead of giving him fish. Some people have monetary capital. That's not the only capital necessary in modern societies.

Anyway, I'll admit that the mistake in wording was my fault. I imagine people will do anything but revert a decision. Human tendency is that if you make a decision, you should stick by it. Of course, that's a sunk cost. The time everyone invested restricting me can't be regained. It's my fault if I didn't presented my views in a proper way. That's done with, as I see it.

I see homeless people on the street. They need financial help. Where I grew up, we didn't have homeless people. It was a small town. Maybe they were hidden (I think I would've heard something), but we didn't know about them. All the poor in my town were those with the lowest income. So maybe they aren't poor considering whatever arbitrary standards we are using.

If poor means needs financial assistance, we can qualify a lot of people as poor. All I did was convey factual statements in a bad way. Better inform me of how I'm supposed to use the terms, and I might be able to avoid making mistakes in communication.

I'm not an idiot either. Explain to me where I went wrong if I'm missing something I haven't already addressed. If you're right, I'll agree with you. It's not hard to treat people as if they aren't morons, to teach them before throwing them aside. Treat me like I'm five. If I make a statement that is false, explain to me how it's false. I regularly talk to people in my day to day life, discuss, and willingly concede that they are correct.

I realize how terrible my post came across. Given how I've tried to elaborate what I meant in a clearer way, hopefully making no additional mistakes, maybe people can see what I meant.

I was trying to communicate that saying the poor are to blame their poverty is pointless. I'm not a fan of blame. I'm a fan of addressing the causes of someone been poor. If I can't lift a chair, is it my fault or the chairs. It's pointless to discuss it. The issue is how to we best solve it.

The majority of global poverty is caused by injustices in the system. Some poverty is caused by an attitude in Western nations that is common to members of all classes. This is the attitude that we are entitled to certain things and therefore can't be expected to sacrifice them for long-term gain.

The main response was that poor people are too lazy and stupid to send their children to college?

Lazy? You're damn right I'm saying that. The capitalist notion of entitlement has gotten to the point where parents think they don't even have obligations to their children. I had to convince my own father that he did, and he has doctorate.

Dare have children is a controversial issue. How Darwinism was linked to my post I'm not sure. Likely because poor people are having children when they aren't financially capable of supporting them?

Do they have a right to have children? Yes. The fact that the child will be poor might matter. The fact that children could be raised by you, adopted, if you didn't have a child might matter. Ethics are complicated.

I would never criticize someone for having a child simply because they are poor. In most cases, parents provide for children regardless of their income level. However, the resources they have to provide (which sometimes includes having good parents themselves) are sometimes limited.

Overall, the child is better of being alive than dead. Would I criticize someone starving in Africa for having a child? No. Would I think it is unfortunate? Yes. If we aren't doing anything about poverty, it's bad that more children are being born into poverty. Obviously, we should direct solutions towards addressing poverty.

Social Darwinism still seems like a pretty big leap from my original post. Poor Darwin being associated with such a thing.

EDIT:

In another context, the entire issue of laziness seems like a social construct some I may been discussing something only within the context of a socially constructed value. Maybe laziness exists. Someone let me know if they have the answer.

EDIT2: I was probably generalizing based on limited experience, but I do think a lot of poverty is caused by a lack of educational and social resources rather than material resources. It takes capital to get the education, but I also think there is a basic level of community education or generational education that is required to ensure that capital is used properly (AKA good parenting). Parenting doesn't always happen when someone either never had a good parent and/or is busy working 3 jobs. It's a vicious cycle.

[Jack]

I was banned for "transphobia", apparantly. Unfortunately, none of the people who took issue with my supposed transphobia felt the need to PM me to ask me my feelings on it directly, and most of the responses I got in the thread where the issue came up were spent calling me a "reactionary" and the ever so elegant term "dickhead", as well as "right-winger", all of these without basis.

I don't think being transgendered is natural, that is not transphobia, however. I did not encourage or excuse violence or discrimination against transgenders, thus it was not transphobic. It's pretty much the same situation if someone says they "aren't comfortable with abortion", that doesn't mean you can instantly classify them as anti-choice.

[gorillafuck]

You said "I understand them, I just don't support them" and were thanking posts that were blatantly transphobic.

[F9]

You werent banned, but restricted!

[Jack]

You said "I understand them, I just don't support them" and were thanking posts that were blatantly transphobic.

I thanked posts that I agreed with, but none of them encouraged negative action against transgenders.


You werent banned, but restricted!

You know what I mean...

[F9]

I thanked posts that I agreed with, but none of them encouraged negative action against transgenders.



You know what I mean...

Transphobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia)
Phobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia#Terms_indicating_prejudice_or_class_discrim ination)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Hey Jack. I'd suggest starting a topic on the issue in OI. No offense, but I think you're mistaken on the issue. I'm not sure it warranted restricted, but it probably is consistent with board policy.

For instance, I imagine someone against homosexuality but respectful of others choice to be homosexual would be restricted.

I think you're factually mistaken on the issue as I'm starting to think I may have been on mine. While I agree wholeheartedly that people should be debated respectfully before restriction, I don't know how much control we have over that.

I'd be interested in debating the transgendered issue with you in OI if that's where I'm stuck. I hope I can get out of it as I'm mainly here for the leftist atmosphere (I get plenty of OI discussion in daily life).

The medical evidence seems to imply that transgendered individuals are born that way similar to gay and lesbian individuals. The idea of transgendered individuals being natural might suggest that sex, being male or female, has an essential quality or essence rooted in biology that matches up with a mental component.

I think I could convince you on this issue. Then at least you'll be able to get out of OI. I probably need more hobbies otherwise it wouldn't annoy me being restricted as much as it does.

[Jack]

Transphobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia)
Phobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia#Terms_indicating_prejudice_or_class_discrim ination)

Yeah....I still don't fit the definition because I wasn't "discriminating" against them, I just don't see it as natural.

[Led Zeppelin]

I just don't see it as natural.

Do you realize that your position on this is more backward and reactionary than the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm) which has articles in its penal code (http://www.learningpartnership.org/en/resources/legislation/nationallaw/iran) allowing the stoning of people?

[Jack]

Do you realize that your position on this is more backward and reactionary than the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm) which has articles in its penal code (http://www.learningpartnership.org/en/resources/legislation/nationallaw/iran) allowing the stoning of people?

Your logic is entertaining. I don't think it's natural=STONE THEM AND CAST THEM INTO THE FIRES OF HELL!!!

[Led Zeppelin]

Your logic is entertaining. I don't think it's natural=STONE THEM AND CAST THEM INTO THE FIRES OF HELL!!!

Stop drawing idiotic conclusions from misunderstanding what I wrote.

I pointed out the stoning as an example of the Islamic Republic of Iran being socially reactionary, I wasn't tying it to your reactionary and backward views on transsexuality.

In fact, that wouldn't even make sense because in Iran it is considered a "human right" to get sex-changes if you are transsexual, and they're not stoned.

It merely proves that even that socially reactionary government has a more progressive view on transsexuality than you. That's an embarrassment.

[Jack]

Stop drawing idiotic conclusions from misunderstanding what I wrote.

I pointed out the stoning as an example of the Islamic Republic of Iran being socially reactionary, I wasn't tying it to your reactionary and backward views on transsexuality.

In fact, that wouldn't even make sense because in Iran it is considered a "human right" to get sex-changes if you are transsexual, and they're not stoned.

Am I stopping them from? Am I stepping on their right to get a sex change? No I'm not and I have no intentions to, which makes my restriction ludacris.

[khad]

Do you realize that your position on this is more backward and reactionary than the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm) which has articles in its penal code (http://www.learningpartnership.org/en/resources/legislation/nationallaw/iran) allowing the stoning of people?
I don't know. This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. In Iran, the cultural understanding of homosexuality is that of "sexual inversion" (you like guys, so you must be a woman!) and thus the law allows sex change operations. So it's not acceptable to be a homosexual, but it is legal and all to be a transsexual. There have been reports of many homosexuals feeling "pressured" to undergo sex change operations since that's the only way they can become un-closeted.

It's not particularly enlightening to throw around labels like "progressive" and "reactionary." Reality has a way of not conforming to broad brushes.

[#FF0000]

Am I stopping them from? Am I stepping on their right to get a sex change? No I'm not and I have no intentions to, which makes my restriction ludacris.

I'm not going to hurt any black people. I just believe they are sub-human and that Jim Crow wasn't that bad. :confused:

[Jack]

I'm not going to hurt any black people. I just believe they are sub-human and that Jim Crow wasn't that bad. :confused:

Did I say that transgenders were subhuman? Did I applaud gay-bashers? No, I didn't, quit putting words in my mouth.

This is from the CNT's newspaper, by the way:

[QUOTE]
In 1935 the editorial response to the question "What is there to be said about those comrades who themselves are anarchists and who associate with inverts?"[5] read as follows: "They cannot be viewed as men if that 'associate' means anything apart from speaking to or saluting sexual degenerates. If you are an anarchist, that means that you are more morally upright and physically strong than the average man. And he who likes inverts is no real man, and is therefore no real anarchist."[?QUOTE]

So instantly, the CNT is a reactionary, right wing organization? Now that's homosexuality, which is seperate from transexuality, but if you consider transexuality to be natural than the same standard applies.

Oh, and that's not just saying it's unnatural like I am, that's saying that it's immoral.

[Led Zeppelin]

So it's not acceptable to be a homosexual, but it is legal and all to be a transsexual. There have been reports of many homosexuals feeling "pressured" to undergo sex change operations since that's the only way they can become un-closeted.

Sure, but I was referring to their policies on people who are actually transsexuals. To them it is certainly progressive. I have posted about Iran's reactionary policy on homosexuals many times, so that part is not a surprise to me.


It's not particularly enlightening to throw around labels like "progressive" and "reactionary." Reality has a way of not conforming to broad brushes.

Either that or you can bother to read exactly what people are referring to when they use the "reactionary" and "progressive" brush. That usually works as well.


Am I stopping them from? Am I stepping on their right to get a sex change? No I'm not and I have no intentions to, which makes my restriction ludacris.

Then there's also this of course, regarding your claim of it "not being natural": Transsexual gene link identified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7689007.stm)

[khad]

In 1935 the editorial response to the question "What is there to be said about those comrades who themselves are anarchists and who associate with inverts?"[5] read as follows: "They cannot be viewed as men if that 'associate' means anything apart from speaking to or saluting sexual degenerates. If you are an anarchist, that means that you are more morally upright and physically strong than the average man. And he who likes inverts is no real man, and is therefore no real anarchist."I think this speaks more to social attitudes of the early 20th century. Before the rise of a homosexual identity, many societies viewed homosexuals as simply "sexual inverts." They like men, so they cannot be men themselves; they must be women.

To a person of that era, it just simply wouldn't occur to him that a male homosexual could be a "real man." Because being a "man" was culturally understood as being packaged with the heteronormative gender role.

It's still more or less the case, but less explicitly so. We don't use terms like "invert" anymore which deny the existence of a male homosexual gender identity.


Either that or you can bother to read exactly what people are referring to when they use the "reactionary" and "progressive" brush. That usually works as well.
To clarify, I was referring to Iran's transsexual policy as being labeled progressive. It's a little of both. It's "progressive" in some ways, but it also illustrates socially regressive tendencies in the form of ossified gender positions.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Jack, are you saying it's unnatural meaning the following: it's not genetically caused by caused by environmental circumstances. We tell people gender is important so if they feel homosexual, they think they were supposed to be a "women" rather than simply homosexual?

Doesn't there seem to be significant enough evidence to conclude transexuality is a distinct and genetic phenomenon where an individuals physical sex does not correspond to the genetic traits in the brain that select a sex, thereby causing a cognitive dissonance?

What do you mean by "unnatural" and what connotations does it have?

Edit: On a side note, I'm starting to think that most Western poor aren't poor because of laziness. Laziness is an arbitrary standard. Even if you employ the standard society typically uses, most people wouldn't expect the poor to overcome their circumstances even if they could. I still maintain that some could if they had superhuman willpower. Some of them do have this willpower, and do. I suspect I was reflecting an opinion that I generalized based on my own experiences. I grew up with a lot of poorer friends who were talented. They had opportunities, as I see it, and squandered them. However, I can't know their circumstances in entirety. The real evil is society did nothing to help them. Let's be honest. Every once in awhile, we all get pissed at someone for something even if it isn't there fault. We live in a culture that blames people for their circumstances, especially the poor.

I still say a lot of Western poor have the opportunity to overcome their circumstances if we hold them to a standard of willpower higher than we hold ourselves. In other words, if they were robots, they could overcome their circumstances. If they were a select few blessed with biological capital (being strong-willed, talented, et cetera) they might also. That's as far as I've got with my current self-reflection as of the moment. If anyone sees any new problems, let me know.

[Jack]

Then there's also this of course, regarding your claim of it "not being natural": Transsexual gene link identified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7689007.stm)

That just shows that they have lower testosterone (for m2f), not that it's natural for them to change their entire sex because of it. There's also a gene that affects how you respond to THC, that doesn't mean some people are meant to smoke cannabis.

[#FF0000]

That just shows that they have lower testosterone (for m2f), not that it's natural for them to change their entire sex because of it. There's also a gene that affects how you respond to THC, that doesn't mean some people are meant to smoke cannabis.

That just shows that their eyes develop at an abnormal rate, not that it's natural for them to get glasses or shoot lasers in their eyes because of it.

[Jack]

Jack, are you saying it's unnatural meaning the following: it's not genetically caused by caused by environmental circumstances. We tell people gender is important so if they feel homosexual, they think they were supposed to be a "women" rather than simply homosexual?

Doesn't there seem to be significant enough evidence to conclude transexuality is a distinct and genetic phenomenon where an individuals physical sex does not correspond to the genetic traits in the brain that select a sex, thereby causing a cognitive dissonance?

What do you mean by "unnatural" and what connotations does it have?

We probably shouldn't have this side debate in this thread. If you want to start a new thread I'll reply there, I need sleep as it is.

[#FF0000]

Also, transsexual, as I understand it, doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go out and get reassignment surgery. You have a problem telling the difference between "sex" and "gender".

[Jack]

That just shows that their eyes develop at an abnormal rate, not that it's natural for them to get glasses or shoot lasers in their eyes because of it.

Exactly

[Led Zeppelin]

To clarify, I was referring to Iran's transsexual policy as being labeled progressive. It's a little of both. It's "progressive" in some ways, but it also illustrates socially regressive tendencies in the form of ossified gender positions.

Well yes I agree with you entirely, but I was referring to its solely progressive side in relation to actual transgendered people. There is no doubt that to homosexuals and others who don't want to conform to what you rightly call ossified gender positions it is reactionary and harmful.

In this context we should applaud the progressive side of the policy, while calling for an extension of it in other areas of gender policy.


That just shows that they have lower testosterone (for m2f), not that it's natural for them to change their entire sex because of it.

Did you skip your high-school biology classes?

Let me walk you through it step by step:


DNA analysis from 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers showed they were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene.

The genetic difference may cause weaker testosterone signals, the team reported in Biological Psychiatry.

Do you know how important the hormone testosterone is to gender? Let me put it this way; if your testosterone level was reduced significantly and replaced with estrogen, you'd grow breasts, develop a higher-pitched voice and be more feminine within a week.

Those are just the external physical effects, never mind the internal physiological effects it would procure.


However, other genes are also likely to play a part, they stressed.

This is key. The one gene above in isolation does not determine gender by itself. It determines several aspects of gender, not the whole. A combinination of genes which all relate to gender in one way or another can be "formed" in such a way as to produce transsexuality. It's not like people just wake up in the morning and say to themselves; "Hey, guess what, I want to be a woman today instead of a man!" or vice versa.

That's the way people thought about homosexuality not too long ago (a lot still do). They just wake up one morning and decide to have sex with people of the same sex instead of the opposite. Why? They feel like it!

Don't be ridiculous.

Though, even if it was just based on how you feel alone, how the hell is that "unnatural"? It's certainly natural to the person who wants to do it, so who are you to tell them that it is not "natural"?

You are not the moral arbiter of the universe, you don't get to pick and choose what is natural and what isn't, especially not when science is against you and you are basing your views on emotionalism.

Anyway, moving on:


One study has shown that certain brain structures in male-to-female transsexual people are more "female like".

This speaks for itself. I went into greater detail about this in the other thread, but basically; not all brains are the same, either of men compared to men or of women compared to women. But there are certain characteristics that women's brains share with each other and men's brains share with each other. Those are looked at and analyzed, and voila, the above conclusion.

Presented to you by the wonderful thing called science.

[Kronos]

Kronos, why were you restricted again?

I know why but I'm not going to tell you. You are supposed to know these things. Isn't there a file on me in the warden's office or something? A motion of discovery?

Are you telling me you are keeping me in prison and you don't even know why?

This is not good, Sentinel. Not good at all.

[Sentinel]

I know why but I'm not going to tell you. You are supposed to know these things. Isn't there a file on me in the warden's office or something? A motion of discovery?

Are you telling me you are keeping me in prison and you don't even know why?

This is not good, Sentinel. Not good at all.Hahahaha! :lol:

Actually, it would take me about 2 seconds to find your 'file' (the CC discussion which led to your restriction) but I'm quite simply too lazy. I'm not the one who wants to get unrestricted here, after all.

If you think you might have a reasonable chance, you tell me, and then I'll maybe look into it. But I suspect this is where the actual problem lies.

[Pogue]

Did I say that transgenders were subhuman? Did I applaud gay-bashers? No, I didn't, quit putting words in my mouth.

This is from the CNT's newspaper, by the way:





In 1935 the editorial response to the question "What is there to be said about those comrades who themselves are anarchists and who associate with inverts?"[5] read as follows: "They cannot be viewed as men if that 'associate' means anything apart from speaking to or saluting sexual degenerates. If you are an anarchist, that means that you are more morally upright and physically strong than the average man. And he who likes inverts is no real man, and is therefore no real anarchist."[?QUOTE]

So instantly, the CNT is a reactionary, right wing organization? Now that's homosexuality, which is seperate from transexuality, but if you consider transexuality to be natural than the same standard applies.

Oh, and that's not just saying it's unnatural like I am, that's saying that it's immoral.

It shows the widespread social attitudes of the era. It doesn't make the CNT a reactionary organisation today, because they obviously no longer hold that view.

Also, even if some members of the CNT held reactionary views it doesn't/didn't make the organisation inherently reactionary.

I love how you quote a text from 74 years ago to try and justify the predjudiced, disgusting opinion you hold today.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Update on my restriction. I've been researching the issue of poverty, and it looks like I was mistaken. I probably already knew that, deep down. I think capitalist propaganda and cultural environments influence all of us sometimes. I found a neat article. It looks like some people might be poor due to lack of willpower or "laziness," but the vast majority would still be poor if working 40 hours a week. Even those categorized as "lazy" are probably often lacking a good upbringing thereby not really responsible. Not that "lazy" people are responsible. I'm lazy, but it's natural to me not something I can magically change through some mystical "free will" force.

Here is the neat article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1093/is_n3_v41/ai_20809843/

[Jack]

It shows the widespread social attitudes of the era. It doesn't make the CNT a reactionary organisation today, because they obviously no longer hold that view.

Also, even if some members of the CNT held reactionary views it doesn't/didn't make the organisation inherently reactionary.

I love how you quote a text from 74 years ago to try and justify the predjudiced, disgusting opinion you hold today.

No, but by your standards it made the CNT of 1935 reactionary, and since there was no massive change in policy in the CNT from 1935 to 1936, the Spanish Revolution...never happened, since you hold those views to make someone a reactionary, the CNT was reactionary.

It also wasn't just "some members", that's from Solidaridad Obrero.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I feel for you, Jack. Even if your ideas change into something they see as positive they'll probably leave you here; I abandoned anarcho-capitalism and they've yet to take me back (not that I'm begging... bollocks to the CC :P).

Suprised you of all people got the boot. You where such a supporter of the Party-line.

[Nwoye]

Yeah Dooga should most certainly be unrestricted. He's a solid poster and made one comment that really wasn't "reactionary" at all. Besides he's revised his opinion here anyway.

[Ismail]

Do you realize that your position on this is more backward and reactionary than the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm) which has articles in its penal code (http://www.learningpartnership.org/en/resources/legislation/nationallaw/iran) allowing the stoning of people?To be fair, Enver Hoxha encouraged lesbians as a way of defeating perceived "male chauvinism" (homosexuality) in Albanian society. Iran stones gays to death. Transgendered people have even more problems with going through life than homosexuals, so if the Iranian government doesn't really touch them, it is more of a unique situation than "You're more reactionary than the Iranian government!" Lots of semi-Islamic societies engaged in homosexuality, but we don't say "You're more reactionary than X tribe!" if someone is against homosexuality.

It's a strange comparison.

[Led Zeppelin]

It seems like you didn't bother to read my subsequent posts in which I replied to Khad who said exactly the same thing as you did, and agreeing with him partially.

Maybe you should.

[#FF0000]

I feel for you, Jack. Even if your ideas change into something they see as positive they'll probably leave you here; I abandoned anarcho-capitalism and they've yet to take me back (not that I'm begging... bollocks to the CC :P).

Suprised you of all people got the boot. You where such a supporter of the Party-line.

1) You're so wrong about everything that we aren't going to take you back until you read books and get smarter.

2) What party-line

[ls]

No, but by your standards it made the CNT of 1935 reactionary, and since there was no massive change in policy in the CNT from 1935 to 1936, the Spanish Revolution...never happened, since you hold those views to make someone a reactionary, the CNT was reactionary.

It also wasn't just "some members", that's from Solidaridad Obrero.

Purposely misunderstand Pogue's post if you want. Apologising for reactionary attitudes in a past era and saying that they are ok to have even today isn't helping your case one bit.

[Jack]

Purposely misunderstand Pogue's post if you want. Apologising for reactionary attitudes in a past era and saying that they are ok to have even today isn't helping your case one bit.

How did I "misunderstand"?

[Ismail]

Maybe you should.It was such a strange comment I had an impulse to reply.

[Havet]

I would like to ask any CC member to reconsider my restriction on the following arguments:

I used to sympathize with "right-libertarians" until the following comment from now suspended socialist made me understand something.

I had argued: Lew Rockwell is not a Libertarian, by using the following logic:


I can demonstrate why i am right with my usual flawless logic:

Proposition 1: Lew Rockwell wishes to use force by restricting borders.

Proposition 2: Libertarianism is a term used to define political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty.

Proposition 3: Restricting borders isn't maximizing individual liberty.

Conclusion: Lew Rockwell isn't a Libertarian.


To which socialist replied: "Then neither was Rothbard (http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf) a libertarian nor the writers at LewRockwell.com who advocate slavery (http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf) etc. You must be the only libertarian on the planet. Congrats!"

Afterwards a comment from GDPD: This is just an observation, but I think hayenmill is going through that phase where he has become fed up with much of the bullshit in the "libertarian" tradition, namely the many blatantly un-libertarian things some thinkers like Rothbard and Hoppe have said and advocated, and thus seeks to distance himself from them and refers to them as being "vulgar." Interestingly enough, our previous resident ancap, dejavu, went through a very similar process before rejecting ancapism outright and embracing mutualism, after which he was promptly unrestricted.

All of this was taken from here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pissing-off-stormfront-t112820/index.html?p=1489876&highlight=hayenmill+libertarian+lewrockwell#post14 89876).

And i can understand what he is saying completely. If to be a right winger or common libertarian or a dickhead ancap is to accept any restriction on individual liberties and engage in idiotic comments such as racism, anti-immigrant policies and the like, then i was never a right-winger nor a libertarian.

After that I said:
Well i'm beginning to be aware that i cannot hold my definitions against the whole of the world

if for most people libertarianism embraces some sort of stupidty like slavery or force to separate races then i am not a libertarian.

But yes i have been recently embracing more "market anarchy" (where anarcho-capitalism is a branch of), anarcho-pluralism and various aspects of mutualism.

And now i can clearly see how most of these ancaps have a lot of flawed logic (rights speech, using self-ownership when its a meaningless concept, so on). I can confidently say that I have been reading some Mutualist writtings (as seen here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-theory-value-t112448/index.html)) and I basically agree with almost everything Proudhon and other writters initially proposed. This is why i now fully support mutualism as the end-result of the society i find fairer and better.

[Sam_b]

Why do you deserve to be unrestricted or even want to continue posting after becrying this board and its members as being undemocratic and restricting your 'rights'?

[danyboy27]

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg
havemill, why! stay with us! dont let some silly rule change who you are !

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Why do you deserve to be unrestricted or even want to continue posting after becrying this board and its members as being undemocratic and restricting your 'rights'?

So if I criticize a government for taking away my rights, I don't deserve to receive any? Isn't that essentially what you're saying. I have no idea if the guy deserves to be unrestricted. That just seems like a bad criticism to me.

I dislike many things about my country. If people tell me to leave, I tell them it's the best at providing what I want or I have investments that I can't take with me as a result of being raised in that nation. Whatever reasons he has for wanting to post here, they are not contingent on him liking the administration of the board.

What other forum has a comparable selection of leftist discussion? And starting one's own forum is fairly unrealistic. There are little sunk costs. However, the processes of gaining a reputation would be a huge undertaking. I actually thought of creating a competitive forum (sorry admins) for a time, but the effort required is rather substantial, and there is no guarantee of success.

In other words, I can think of tons of reasons why someone would want to post here while continuing to criticize the administration and certain aspects of the forum.

Overall, I like these forums. I have plenty of things I'd do different, and there are plenty of things I like the way they are. We don't go around patting everyone on the back constantly. Unfortunately, we only tend to tell people what we dislike about them. How often do you here anyone compliment the administration here or congratulate them? It's not something the restricted section has a monopoly on.

[SouthernBelle82]

I don't think my restriction was unfair but understandable. At the time I was more of a democratic socialist when I first joined. After spending loads of time with people over at Soviet-Empire.com and having discussions and reading (when I had time) I've come to be a communist and consider myself a Marxist-Lenist although I also like the writings of Fidel Castro Lenin, politically, is my first love and I admire Marx obviously. I am a Christian and a Communist so I hope that's okay. I would love to be able to talk more on other forums here but I understand if the mods/admins decide to keep me restricted. I have been posting in the Opposing Views forum and have been enjoying it a lot. Well I thank who ever is reading this for your time.

[SouthernBelle82]

So if I criticize a government for taking away my rights, I don't deserve to receive any? Isn't that essentially what you're saying. I have no idea if the guy deserves to be unrestricted. That just seems like a bad criticism to me.

I dislike many things about my country. If people tell me to leave, I tell them it's the best at providing what I want or I have investments that I can't take with me as a result of being raised in that nation. Whatever reasons he has for wanting to post here, they are not contingent on him liking the administration of the board.

What other forum has a comparable selection of leftist discussion? And starting one's own forum is fairly unrealistic. There are little sunk costs. However, the processes of gaining a reputation would be a huge undertaking. I actually thought of creating a competitive forum (sorry admins) for a time, but the effort required is rather substantial, and there is no guarantee of success.

In other words, I can think of tons of reasons why someone would want to post here while continuing to criticize the administration and certain aspects of the forum.

Overall, I like these forums. I have plenty of things I'd do different, and there are plenty of things I like the way they are. We don't go around patting everyone on the back constantly. Unfortunately, we only tend to tell people what we dislike about them. How often do you here anyone compliment the administration here or congratulate them? It's not something the restricted section has a monopoly on.

I apologize if I'm not supposed to respond but wanted to. An internet message forum is not the same as a country's governing system. The forum has owners who buy the space and put their time, money and effort into running the place. They make up TOS rules that you agree to when you sign up. In the end it really doesn't matter what people think on forums unless they're a fellow administrator or if the admins ask people for their opinions. I think though I'd feel differently if members had to pay to join the forum but since they're letting us use their space to chat that's how it is. Oh and also even with countries there generally is a Constitution of some form and that's what the TOS is. Even within a country you still have rules and boundaries.

[Havet]

Why do you deserve to be unrestricted or even want to continue posting after becrying this board and its members as being undemocratic and restricting your 'rights'?

By that logic, everyone previously restricted could never become unrestricted because they once held OI views.

[Havet]

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg
havemill, why! stay with us! dont let some silly rule change who you are !

Oh it wasnt a rule that changed me. I just better understood many arguments I once heard but never quite grasped.

[danyboy27]

Oh it wasnt a rule that changed me. I just better understood many arguments I once heard but never quite grasped.


go to the OI, we got cookies.

[Sam_b]

By that logic, everyone previously restricted could never become unrestricted because they once held OI views.

Rubbish. Not every restricted member (ones arguing for unrestriction or not) acts like a spoiled brat and whines/trolls, such as:



Bite me. I'm not denying you of anything. I AM BEING DENIED OF something idiot. But i guess its more comfortable to live with the illusion of wanting to be a communist when actually you behave like a Capitalist when defending this website.



An internet message forum is not the same as a country's governing system

This.

[Havet]

Rubbish. Not every restricted member (ones arguing for unrestriction or not) acts like a spoiled brat and whines/trolls, such as:

This.

And nobody even managed to adress my comments, except NoXion, and we ended up discussing the issue in PM.

I even managed to propose a more fair and free way for people to post while restricting douchebags from StormFront from preventing them to take over:


What if you'd keep restriction but still allow any member to have a vote (or for startes just allowing non-restricted members who arent in CC to vote)? How about doing voting like some soccer clubs do: older members votes count more (as in more votes) than youngest members to prevent the club from being taken over by others? That actually sounds like a terrific idea to prevent stormfront or others from taking over, and would be fairer.

NoXion's response was: "It could be worth experimenting to find out, but I doubt it's going to happen on revleft very soon."

[Havet]

go to the OI, we got cookies.

If i get unrestricted i'll still spend most of my time in OI. I just want to have the freedom to occasionally post in Science.

[Sam_b]

I'm not interested in your excuses for your pathetic outbursts. If i'm going to vote for your unrestriction if it comes up, why would I want someone who does this at the drop of a hat free to roam the boards?

EDIT: And StormFronters are not restricted, they're banned. TBH your idea is valid but I would argue it would cause an increase in sockpuppet accounts to try and force through legislation, and would be much more bureaucratic in nature. But here is not the place to talk about such things.

[Havet]

I'm not interested in your excuses for your pathetic outbursts. If i'm going to vote for your unrestriction if it comes up, why would I want someone who does this at the drop of a hat free to roam the boards?


I have only done it once, and i recognize the childfullness of my actions. Am I going to be branded a child now forever? Can't people, you know, evolve in their reasoning and actions?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I apologize if I'm not supposed to respond but wanted to. An internet message forum is not the same as a country's governing system. The forum has owners who buy the space and put their time, money and effort into running the place. They make up TOS rules that you agree to when you sign up. In the end it really doesn't matter what people think on forums unless they're a fellow administrator or if the admins ask people for their opinions. I think though I'd feel differently if members had to pay to join the forum but since they're letting us use their space to chat that's how it is. Oh and also even with countries there generally is a Constitution of some form and that's what the TOS is. Even within a country you still have rules and boundaries.

Why do you get a free pass to do whatever you want simply because someone agreed to let you do whatever you want? If I say, "do what you want, sign a paper, et cetera," and you shoot me, you're still doing something wrong.

The fact that this isn't a country is a very lame excuse. Agreement to a system is completely irrelevant to the morality of the given system. However, these forums are hardly the epitome of evil. They are fairly well managed, in my opinion. On principle, though, I think it's quite apt to compare the forums to a country.

1. People agree to government because there is no viable alternative.
2. The government provides important services. Overall, most people are made better off with the existence of the government than without it.

There are no other quality leftist forums. The effort required to make a competing forum is too much to be realistic. People have investments made in the forum by way of reputation and acquaintances. It's "very" similar to a country. The issue is that people voluntarily entered here. People can voluntarily enter into slavery. It doesn't give it moral justification if they do.

Again, I don't want the reputation of some revleft hater. I quite like the forums and the administration despite being restricted. I could list plenty of things I dislike. The list of things I like would be larger, though.

[SouthernBelle82]

Why do you get a free pass to do whatever you want simply because someone agreed to let you do whatever you want? If I say, "do what you want, sign a paper, et cetera," and you shoot me, you're still doing something wrong.

The fact that this isn't a country is a very lame excuse. Agreement to a system is completely irrelevant to the morality of the given system. However, these forums are hardly the epitome of evil. They are fairly well managed, in my opinion. On principle, though, I think it's quite apt to compare the forums to a country.

1. People agree to government because there is no viable alternative.
2. The government provides important services. Overall, most people are made better off with the existence of the government than without it.

There are no other quality leftist forums. The effort required to make a competing forum is too much to be realistic. People have investments made in the forum by way of reputation and acquaintances. It's "very" similar to a country. The issue is that people voluntarily entered here. People can voluntarily enter into slavery. It doesn't give it moral justification if they do.

Again, I don't want the reputation of some revleft hater. I quite like the forums and the administration despite being restricted. I could list plenty of things I dislike. The list of things I like would be larger, though.

That's kinda the point of TOS. Every forum has them even if they're just simple basic things like harassment and posting illegal images and things like that.

I think you missed the point with it being compared to with a country. A forum generally is not democratic. It only is if the administration allows it to be or will sometime asks members for their advice on decisions about features or what have you. You're "borrowing" space to post. If I'm borrowing someone's pen for example I'm hopefully going to treat it with respect and not munch on it or something. Even on blogs you can moderate responses. I do all the time on mine to keep ridiculous spam nonsense out.

1) Depends on where you live. Here in the U.S. we do get a say in things through voting. Of course it doesn't always work out but that's why you can vote for someone else who does work out. Rules are changed and updated all the time with the Constitution such as the right for everyone to vote and not just white male's. Sometimes in countries in order for things to change you need to go to the extreme with revolutions whether we're talking about the American revolution, China and Mao, Cuba etc.

2) Uh yes. This isn't a government. This is a message board. If for example one day the admins decided to remove say the chat room or the OI section they can do that and the owner has the final say and the admins and mods carry out the wishes.

Why is it so difficult to understand this isn't a democracy unless the forum wants it to be? I don't know of any forum that does. Or at least none that I've ever been on. Oh and you do have a choice to leave......

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I see what you mean, but I just don't think the TOS justifies free reign on behalf of anyone, forum or otherwise. What should be done is independent of agreements.

[SouthernBelle82]

I see what you mean, but I just don't think the TOS justifies free reign on behalf of anyone, forum or otherwise. What should be done is independent of agreements.

Doesn't matter if you like it or not. Once you click the "yes" to you agree to the TOS that's a done deal unless you decide to leave. Or the admins ask your opinion on it and decide they like what you say.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Doesn't matter if you like it or not. Once you click the "yes" to you agree to the TOS that's a done deal unless you decide to leave. Or the admins ask your opinion on it and decide they like what you say.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. You're talking about practice. I'm talking about theory. Here is the position, roughly. Any forum has a given foundational framework. These are the basic ideas the forum promotes. Bassed on principles of rationality, the forum should do X and not Y. Most of the time, it does X. Sometimes, it doesn't.

A Christian only forum is being ridiculous if it allows atheists. Similarly, a revolutionary leftist forum should do X, whatever X entails, to be consistent based on its foundations. It's got nothing to do with whether I agreed.

I agreed. If something I don't like happens, I'm screwed. I'm quite aware of that.

[SouthernBelle82]

If you know nothing will change why waste your time? I guess you must be that bored?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If you know nothing will change why waste your time? I guess you must be that bored?

Sometimes it's worth appealing to the rationality of those above you hopes that they'll do the right thing independent of their personal motivations.

And I am pretty bored.

[SouthernBelle82]

Sometimes it's worth appealing to the rationality of those above you hopes that they'll do the right thing independent of their personal motivations.

And I am pretty bored.

Well I consider you lucky if you can get a whole message forum to change things because of one person.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well I consider you lucky if you can get a whole message forum to change things because of one person.

Well the idea would be to suggest things that make the forum better for everyone. For instance, the CC requirements are vague. If they were made more specific that say, a person could know whether they meet them within a reasonable level, they could request membership.

As it is now, the CC requirements are quite subjective.

[Havet]

So um..could someone look into my unrestriction? Loveschach, you sent me a PM asking about why should I be unrestricted, but i've heard no reply yet. I don't mind waiting for a while though, i'm sure you have more important things to do.

[danyboy27]

please stay! we need more people!

[Kronos]

Do not despair, dany. I am here. I can provide the opposition of ten men, and the reaction of twenty.

As my title indicates, I am a philosopher mercenary. I argue for the highest bidder. You let me know what topic you want us to oppose and I'll oppose it, no problem.

[danyboy27]

Do not despair, dany. I am here. I can provide the opposition of ten men, and the reaction of twenty.

As my title indicates, I am a philosopher mercenary. I argue for the highest bidder. You let me know what topic you want us to oppose and I'll oppose it, no problem.

how much will it cost?

[SocialPhilosophy]

-

[yuon]

I still think abortion needs to be addressed but i am no longer anti-choice. i realize that making it illegal doesn't actually address the problem it just forces it underground and women end up getting dangerous illegal abortions. the only way to effectively combat it are to address the the social ills that give rise to it...poverty etc.

can i be unrestricted?
What do you mean by "abortion needs to be addressed"? Discouraged? You don't think that women should be punished for having an abortion? Why not?

I think the answer you should be providing is more along the lines of personal autonomy, rather than legality and safety. Abortion should be a right, not because it would be unsafe otherwise, but because it is the woman's body, not the baby's...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What do you mean by "abortion needs to be addressed"? Discouraged? You don't think that women should be punished for having an abortion? Why not?

I think the answer you should be providing is more along the lines of personal autonomy, rather than legality and safety. Abortion should be a right, not because it would be unsafe otherwise, but because it is the woman's body, not the baby's...

That's a bit much. Making people hold a pro-choice position is a pretty unique requirement as it is. Now you want people to be pro-choice for the right reasons? If I start an atheist club, I want atheists. I don't care how they "became atheist."

Telling people how they should act is one thing. Being pro-life entails an action. We don't want people telling women what to do. Telling someone why they should be pro-choice, I think, is rather ridiculous.

He's fully entitled to be opposed to individual abortions if he wants. I'm opposed to smoking. It's none of my business whether someone does. They have a right to smoke if they want. Yet, I'm still opposed to smoking. Is my opposition to smoking grounds for not supporting their liberty in "the right kind of fashion?"

[Misanthrope]

How is Jack restricted and this guy isn't?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1500397&postcount=89

Is it because he is a Lenninist commie club member?

[LOLseph Stalin]

How is Jack restricted and this guy isn't?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1500397&postcount=89

Is it because he is a Lenninist commie club member?

I've noticed that too actually. His views on transgenders do seem a bit iffy.

[danyboy27]

I've noticed that too actually. His views on transgenders do seem a bit iffy.

tupac restricted? i doubt this is gonna happen, if it happen it will definitively make my day,

[Jack]

Lol, I garuntee Tupac voted for my restriction too.

[#FF0000]

is it because he is a lenninist commie club member?

lol yeah the cc totally has a leninist bias

[Led Zeppelin]

How is Jack restricted and this guy isn't?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1500397&postcount=89


I and, I'm sure many others, wish he was.

[ls]

That post is disgusting, for goodness sake he's in the CC as well.

[danyboy27]

seriously, can someone send me a pm when this will be done?

[Jazzratt]

Lol, I garuntee Tupac voted for my restriction too.

He's smarter than that. He realised that a precedent of restricting people for transphobia would land him in here with you. Frankly it's a fucking disgrace that he isn't.

[Il Medico]

How is Jack restricted and this guy isn't?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1500397&postcount=89

Is it because he is a Lenninist commie club member?
Because the CC and revleft in general is soft on Transphobia. Jack was an extreme example of this kinda of bigotry and had to be dealt with. It still took months though, it is sad really. I doubt my thread in the member's forum will come to anything. However, members outside the CC really have no say in these matters, I hope the CC gets on this issue.

[Pogue]

I think Tupac certainly needs restricting for transphobia.

[Bud Struggle]

What the heck exactly is Transphobia?

[RedAnarchist]

What the heck exactly is Transphobia?

Hatred of transexuals and transgender people.

[Jack]

Or not thinking it's natural, which is the same as hating them apparantly....

[Jazzratt]

Or not thinking it's natural, which is the same as hating them apparantly....

"Gays are unnatural". Is this a homophobic statement?

[Bud Struggle]

"Gays are unnatural". Is this a homophobic statement?

It depends. Such opinions are conditional to specific dates and times. Here at RevLeft in the year 2009, I'd say it is. In Britain and the USA in 2009 it is. In Iran in 2009 it isn't, in the USA and Britain in 1950 is wasn't either.

There's a fact that there are gay people and they are a minority of the population--how a society wants to interpret that fact and what moral and ethical consequence they want to attach to that fact is entirely arbitrary to that society.

Let me add now that YOU can judge any society as bigoted or not as you see fit--and they of course can judge you also. In the end though--it's all opinion.

(I know--this is the wrong place for this discussion.:rolleyes:)

[Led Zeppelin]

It depends. Such opinions are conditional to specific dates and times. Here at RevLeft in the year 2009, I'd say it is. In Britain and the USA in 2009 it is. In Iran in 2009 it isn't, in the USA and Britain in 1950 is wasn't either.

What a ridiculous line of reasoning.

We don't determine what is homophobic based on objective fact but on the subjective views of the majority in a specific area or era?

Calling black people the n word was acceptable up to 50/60 years ago. Enslaving black people was acceptable up to 200 years ago (in the US).

So what? That doesn't change the objective fact that it was racist.


Let me add now that YOU can judge any society as bigoted or not as you see fit--and they of course can judge you also. In the end though--it's all opinion.

So you're using pseudo post-modernism to hide your bigotry.

That's not a first.

[Bud Struggle]

What a ridiculous line of reasoning.

We don't determine what is homophobic based on objective fact but on the subjective views of the majority in a specific area or era?

Calling black people the n word was acceptable up to 50/60 years ago. Enslaving black people was acceptable up to 200 years ago (in the US).

So what? That doesn't change the objective fact that it was racist.

There is no objective fact of what is racist. It's OPINION. Black people call each other the "n" word all the time--are they racist? No. Ask you boy Chomsky--words are fluid and meanings change with each usage. Why not the same with actions?


So you're using pseudo post-modernism to hide your bigotry.

That's not a first. None of this is MY belief. I've stated many times I'm a Christian and I believe in an objective morality based on the teachings of God. My point here is that once an objective creator of the universe given morality is removed--it's all opinion. And FWIW: I'm speaking in YOUR language of subjectivity, not mine. I have never said anything that might be construed as anti-gay or anti-Black EVER on this board or anywhere else. All men are my brothers. (And of course all women are my sisters.)

You can call someone racist--but that's only YOUR opinion. It doesn't make it "true."
You can restrict people for being anti-gay or anti-transgendered, but that is the opinion of a certain group of people in a certain time and place on a certain internet board. You can't claim any "truth" to your beliefs. You can only state that you hold them. Fair enough.
Stop calling names and show me I'm wrong. The post-Modernests had a valid point--either there is an absolute ethic or it's proximate. There's no in between. :cool:

I'm interested in following the Marxist/Athiest understanding of reality to it's endpoint. If you want permanent revolution--why not see what it really looks like?

[Led Zeppelin]

Thank you for clarifying to me why you are restricted, I was curious about that.

[Bud Struggle]

Thank you for clarifying to me why you are restricted, I was curious about that.

I own a factory and I employ people. But at least I'm honest in my beliefs.

And yea, I want to build a better world and if that means giving up things I own--so be it. But I'm not just going to fold over some horseshit that people throw me about "a better world under Communism." Been there seen it. Literally.

Makes sense and be honest.

[danyboy27]

wasnt this thread supposed to be for those who want to be unrestricted? i think things got out of hand...

[Bud Struggle]

wasnt this thread supposed to be for those who want to be unrestricted? i think things got out of hand...

Yup--break it off to a seperate thread. Sorry for the intrusion from my part.

(Calling ALL Global Moderators posting on this thread! :D)

[Misanthrope]

"Gays are unnatural". Is this a homophobic statement?

I don't believe so. I think it's a general consensus that when we refer to homophobia we are referring to hatred of homosexuals. That being said, just because one believes an act is unnatural doesn't necessarily mean they feel hate for those who participate in the act. Although, saying something is unnatural is rather demeaning.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't believe so. I think it's a general consensus that when we refer to homophobia we are referring to hatred of homosexuals. That being said, just because one believes an act is unnatural doesn't necessarily mean they feel hate for those who participate in the act. Although, saying something is unnatural is rather demeaning.

Actually, homophobia also means "antipathy towards homosexuals." Hence the statement 'gays are unnatural' is homophobic. It's also terribly ignorant and presumptuous.

- August

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Actually, homophobia also means "antipathy towards homosexuals." Hence the statement 'gays are unnatural' is homophobic. It's also terribly ignorant and presumptuous.

- August

I just finished an Environmental Ethics course. Robert Elliot argues that nature is something "untouched by human hands." Therefore, the statement that "gays are unnatural" may be equivalent to the claim that "homosexuality emerges culturally, through the influence of 'human hands."

I don't agree with Elliot, who argues nature has an inherent value that can't be replicated aesthetically, and I also don't agree that homosexuality is environmentally caused (though I think the environment can influence sexuality, constrained by biological limitations).

If this is what people mean by "homosexuality is unnatural," is it homophobic? Is it homophobic to say their sexuality is the result of nurture rather than nature?

I think when someone says the word "unnatural" we immediately think of the use of the word "unnatural" to marginalize groups. I don't really care if it turns out homosexuality is environmentally caused. However, I'm not homosexual (not that it matters). I say this because it's my understanding that a genetic cause of sexuality, from the perspective of many homosexuals, is very important to their cultural and personal identity.

I don't know why. But someone's identity is for them to determine themselves. It's very possible that sexuality being genetic has an importance I don't understand.

However, I think this worry is ultimately stemming from a greater problem. If something is genetically caused, people are free from blame. I have depression. There is a stigma associated with therapy that isn't associated with medication. If someone needs therapy, they were doing something "wrong."

I think people who suffer from prejudice, as most homosexuals do, probably don't want to feel they are to blame for their sexuality. Even if they are, they aren't to blame. Determinism makes blame rather unproductive. There is a fine line between accepting responsibility for your own life, and your ability to change things, and claiming responsibility for your own failings.

I mean I was picked on when I was younger for looking different. If science discovered that "super humans" can simply "will" themselves into a state of attractiveness, I would be upset. That means my own shortcomings prevented me from stopping suffering. However, I should be upset at my bad luck - not myself.

Perhaps believing homosexuality is cultural is even homophobic. Surely anyone who interprets the evidence on the current matter would conclude it's genetic. Therefore, it's only latent homophobia that makes people deny this.

I'm not sure about that though. I think sexuality is much more malleable than we think, given how the media conditions us to believe certain images are attractive. While this is still within the confines of a specific sex, who knows what's possible, really.

[Agrippa]

Why am I here? How am I, under any coherent measure of political perspective, an "opposing ideology"?

[Sasha]

sorry, was just about to open an CC admision thread for you when some people had an hissyfit and decided (by very close margin) that the fact that you question the current form of industrilasition that you are an ZOMG! PRIMITIVIST! that wants to send humanity and civalisation to the death camps.
be an solid poster for an while here (and have an good honest look at your naieve glorification for the quite unsocialist pre-industrial society) and you'll make an good case for unrestriction.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, homophobia also means "antipathy towards homosexuals." Hence the statement 'gays are unnatural' is homophobic. It's also terribly ignorant and presumptuous.

- August

Totally rediculous statement. No doubt made to impress your CC friends.

To say something is unnatural means either two things--either it doesn't occur in nature--which is really isn't anything you can truly say about homosexuality,-- since it's a falsehood. OR it can mean in a more vernacular way that's it's something that doesn't occur very often in nature. Like albino alligators or a 7 foot tall women. To say an albino alligator is "unnatural" doesn't imply anything gatorphobic. It's just means that it's rare. In the same way one can say that because maybe 2-5% of the population is homosexual you can say (in a venacular parlance) that it it un-natural. (BTW: it's something that I PERSONALLY would never day being the Politically Correct guy that I am.)

So the meaning of "un-natural" comes NOT from the word itself--but from the context.

Check the context and then and only then can you tell what a stated word means. Try it August--it WORKS!

[danyboy27]

Totally recidulous statement.

To say something is unnatural means either two things--either it doesn't occur in nature--which is really isn't anything you can truly say about homosexuality,-- since it's a falsehood. OR it can mean in a more vernacular way that's it's something that doesn't occur very often in nature. Like albino alligators or a 7 foot tall women. To say an albino alligator is "unnatural" doesn't imply anything gatorphobic. It's just means that it's rare. In the same way one can say that because maybe 2-5% of the population is homosexual you can say (in a venacular parlance) that it it un-natural. (BTW: it's something that I PERSONALLY would never day being the Politically Correct guy that I am.)

So the meaning of "un-natural" comes NOT from the word itself--but from the context.

Check the context and then and only then can you tell what a stated word means. Try it August--it WORKS!
homosexuality do occur in the animal world

[Bud Struggle]

homosexuality do occur in the animal world

I know--I didn't say it didn't occur.

[Pogue]

Well, regardless of the outcome, thank you for considering me worthy of nomination.

Of course I'm going to continue to be a "solid poster", just as I was before I was restricted. But not because I want to modify my behavior to impress or appease the Commie Club, but because I believe in rational, constructive dialogue.

Indeed, pre-industrial societies are unsocialist. Socialism is a method of capitalist political rule, and industrialism is a social phenomenon exclusive to the capitalist mode of production. However, none of the historically communist societies that have existed on any long-term basis.:D

To any CC members reading this thread who voted yes on restricting me: Is expressing any skepticisim towards industrial society truly enough to warrent being restricted? Would Moishe Postone, Ward Churchill, and Mumia Abu-Jamal also be restricted if they tried to post on RevLeft?

I'm more perplexed at how and why you hold such ridiculous beliefs mroe than annoyed at you for being reactionary.

[F9]

This thread gone down the hill and everyone is posting in here, unless you arent a restricted member who questions his/her restriction, or CCer who explains somethings to the restricted member in question do not post.
From now on, keep on topic...

Fuserg9:star:

[Havet]

So...a week has passed. Has someone looked at my unrestriction yet?

[Agrippa]

This thread gone down the hill and everyone is posting in here, unless you arent a restricted member who questions his/her restriction, or CCer who explains somethings to the restricted member in question do not post.
From now on, keep on topic...

Fuserg9:star:

So let me get this straight.

The Commie Club meets in private to discuss whether an individual (such as myself) should be restricted, on the grounds of ideological incorrectness. Thus, postulations and proclamations are made about my ideology, or how the Commie Club interprets my ideology, without my awareness, much less an opportunity for me to clarify and defend my ideology. A conclusion is then reached, the whole time without the individual in question even aware of the situation, much less present to make his/her case.

Once I've recieved the news of being an "opposing ideology", and therefore restricted, I'm allowed the opportunity to make a futile, impotent appeal, which will be completely ignored, in this thread. Since the reason for my restriction is not my conduct, but my ideology, the intricacies and nuances of my ideology are a crucial, if not the central, aspect of the discussion at hand. However, when myself and others discuss my ideology, we are harassed, and our posts deleted, for being "off-topic".

How is this process any more just than show trials under capitalist "law"? Good thing the Stalinists, Trotskyites, dogmatic "left-communists", and technocratic "anarchists" who appear to comprise the majority of the Commie Club don't control anything less irrelevant or frivolous than a message board, otherwise someone would be in serious trouble!

[Jack]

Correct!

[F9]

So let me get this straight.

The Commie Club meets in private to discuss whether an individual (such as myself) should be restricted, on the grounds of ideological incorrectness. Thus, postulations and proclamations are made about my ideology, or how the Commie Club interprets my ideology, without my awareness, much less an opportunity for me to clarify and defend my ideology. A conclusion is then reached, the whole time without the individual in question even aware of the situation, much less present to make his/her case.

Once I've recieved the news of being an "opposing ideology", and therefore restricted, I'm allowed the opportunity to make a futile, impotent appeal, which will be completely ignored, in this thread. Since the reason for my restriction is not my conduct, but my ideology, the intricacies and nuances of my ideology are a crucial, if not the central, aspect of the discussion at hand. However, when myself and others discuss my ideology, we are harassed, and our posts deleted, for being "off-topic".

How is this process any more just than show trials under capitalist "law"? Good thing the Stalinists, Trotskyites, dogmatic "left-communists", and technocratic "anarchists" who appear to comprise the majority of the Commie Club don't control anything less irrelevant or frivolous than a message board, otherwise someone would be in serious trouble!

*yawn*
Serious trouble?:lol:Ohh you make me feel scared now, if someone comes to kick my ass:lol:
Either stay on topic and question why you were restricted about your primitivist "ideas" or just stfu and stop spamming this thread.Last warning..
No one didnt allowed you to do that, so stop been an ass, if you dont like how the board works, no one is holding you from leaving.You like it?Stay!You dont?Either stay and live with how it is, or leave..

Jack:Consider this a verbal warning, for posting again useless posts which offer nothing, in a thread you dont have place for..I have warned before and said i would issue warning points.Do it again, and thats what is coming.


Fuserg9:star:

[Agrippa]

*yawn*
Serious trouble?:lol:Ohh you make me feel scared now, if someone comes to kick my ass:lol:

How am I threatening to "kick [your] ass"?

Me threatening to kick your ass would sound something like this.


BOY, IF YOU DON'T UN-RESTRICT ME, I'M GOING TO SEND AN ARMY OF KARATE BLACK-BELTS TO YOUR HOUSE TO BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU

However, I haven't said that, or anything even vaguely resembling that. All I have done is asked for a simple explanation as to how my allegedly "primitivist" ideology (if you read the only entry I ever made on this message board's built-in blog service, you will find disparaging references to Zerzan, Jensen, Green Anarchy, deep ecology, and permaculture. How many of those in the Commie Club who voted to have me restricted actually bothered to read that blog post, which clarified my ideological positions, and which was specifically written to pre-emt accusations of me being a member of an "opposing ideology"?


Either stay on topic and question why you were restricted about your primitivist "ideas" or just stfu and stop spamming this thread.

Please provide examples of me being "off-topic" or "spamming". All I have seen, so far, is my legitimate demands for an explanation, and refusal on behalf of the Commie Club to offer one. Instead, I have a Commie Club member resorting to fatuous insults, mild censorship, and other displays of an obvious power-trip. And all over the infantesmal amount of power granted over an irrelevant message board on the corner of the Internet. Sad. Imagine what you people will be like when you actually obtain a degree of real political power. Just like Bakunin predicted, I guess...



No one didnt allowed you to do that

You did, by deleting my posts and accusing me, without any basis, of being "off-topic" (despite the fact that plenty of threads are allowed to run off-topic all throughout RevLeft. I remember a few days ago a thread about Harry Potter spinning off into a five-page discussion of the school system)


so stop been an ass

I think it's safe to say that the Commie Club (or at least the majority who voted for my exile) were the ones who were being "asses". I am obviously not a reactionary primitivist in the vain of Zerzan, Richard Hunt, Vikirnes, Linkola, etc. By the Commie Club's standards, virtually two thirds of the late 19th / early 20th century Russian anarchist movement would be exiled to OI, including Bakunin.


if you dont like how the board works, no one is holding you from leaving.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT :D

[F9]

How am I threatening to "kick [your] ass"?

Me threatening to kick your ass would sound something like this.



However, I haven't said that, or anything even vaguely resembling that. All I have done is asked for a simple explanation as to how my allegedly "primitivist" ideology (if you read the only entry I ever made on this message board's built-in blog service, you will find disparaging references to Zerzan, Jensen, Green Anarchy, deep ecology, and permaculture. How many of those in the Commie Club who voted to have me restricted actually bothered to read that blog post, which clarified my ideological positions, and which was specifically written to pre-emt accusations of me being a member of an "opposing ideology"?

I didnt said you threaten me..I said you made it sound like if we acted like that outside of this message board we would be "in serious trouble"..More?I got bored from serious trouble;)




Please provide examples of me being "off-topic" or "spamming". All I have seen, so far, is my legitimate demands for an explanation, and refusal on behalf of the Commie Club to offer one. Instead, I have a Commie Club member resorting to fatuous insults, mild censorship, and other displays of an obvious power-trip. And all over the infantesmal amount of power granted over an irrelevant message board on the corner of the Internet. Sad. Imagine what you people will be like when you actually obtain a degree of real political power. Just like Bakunin predicted, I guess...


The fact that you keep posting it again and again wont have any success.OIers maybe think that its quite obvious and they dont need to spend their time to find your quotes get you restricted as me.."Sorry" that i cant go searching giving to anyone who whines on his/her restriction.If i would do that, i wouldnt have any time read the forums..Beside you point it later, you said you arent a reactionary primitivist, but you kinda accept been one..
Ohh no, im always like that, i need no "powers" to confront people and i need no "powers" to point out the boring things i see..But yeah, good job on pointing a laughable "point".
If you think people need power to insult etc, then im not sure if you really see whats really happening in the roads..



You did, by deleting my posts and accusing me, without any basis, of being "off-topic" (despite the fact that plenty of threads are allowed to run off-topic all throughout RevLeft. I remember a few days ago a thread about Harry Potter spinning off into a five-page discussion of the school system)


What the fuck?What posts i deleted?I remember i trashed really few posts that were completely off topic..And you probably talking about this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ur-derailment-t114180/index.html) which were the only posts removed, and the post you made was just a quote to answer to someone about "the evil cc" restricted you...Something you made lots of time in the past posts, and werent removed...I should have clean the thread even more...
How the fuck can you compare a discussion thread whith a thread that was made for people to question their restrictions, some CCers make some questions, and get answers?Thats about it.If posts dont fit in those criteria are off topic..Stop comparing the uncomperable..



I think it's safe to say that the Commie Club (or at least the majority who voted for my exile) were the ones who were being "asses". I am obviously not a reactionary primitivist in the vain of Zerzan, Richard Hunt, Vikirnes, Linkola, etc. By the Commie Club's standards, virtually two thirds of the late 19th / early 20th century Russian anarchist movement would be exiled to OI, including Bakunin.

We would ban Bakunin most probably.That dont makes and much difference, we wouldnt loose much...What you tried to counter argue that lots of people from different centuries would be banned?:rolleyes:
You know, its not 19th century anymore?World progress, on its natural way..If you want to "go back" then you are OI.And you do.



LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT :D

Basically..

So for last time, either write why you think you shouldnt be restricted in an essay and why you think CC was wrong, or stop posting in this thread.If you want to reply to me, pm it.


Fuserg9:star:

[Agrippa]

write why you think you shouldnt be restricted in an essay

Cost-benefit analysis doesn't really pay off....

[Sam_b]

So after those long-winded posts, your only argument is that under the rules Bakunin would be restricted? Gee, thats mighty convincing.

[Agrippa]

Obviously, it's not my only argument, but what I said about Bakunin also applies to Marx. (see Marx's Notes on Wagner)

I'm sorry if I have better things to do than write a doctorate thesis for a overly-zealous, power-mad message board administration team....:D

[Havet]

woops...double post agrippa

and..could someone look into my unrestriction? pretty please? i can repaste my arguments again

[F9]

Obviously, it's not my only argument, but what I said about Bakunin also applies to Marx. (see Marx's Notes on Wagner)

I'm sorry if I have better things to do than write a doctorate thesis for a overly-zealous, power-mad message board administration team....:D

So what?Do you think now that Marx was going to be restricted, makes us wrong?You are completely wrong.Just like bakunin, most probably he would be banned too, and again we wouldnt loose much...
If you dont wish to question your restriction by pointing proves that CC was wrong, just stop whine that you are restricted.You claim that you shouldnt be restricted, but you dont provide evidences because you have better things to do.
Guess what?CC has better things to do, that search all your posts..

So yeah, thats it. Either come back with evidences, or your inane posts like this will be trashed from now on.

Fuserg9:star:

[F9]

I dont think it was that hard to understand this part of my post above:So yeah, thats it. Either come back with evidences, or your inane posts like this will be trashed from now on.

So yeah, redundant post trashed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ur-agrippa-derailment-t114365/index.html?t=114365).
Plus consider this a verbal warning for continuing derailling, trolling and spamming this thread, after lots of warnings.

Fuserg9:star:

[Agrippa]

How was I "derailing"? I was giving book recommendations that explain my position. Is that not allowed?

You're basically illustrating that RevLeft is what Glenn Beck would call a "thug-ocracy"

Edit: never mind, no matter what I say you're going to just consider it "trolling" and "spamming", trash it, and use it as an excuse to ban me.

[Bud Struggle]

How was I "derailing"? I was giving book recommendations that explain my position. Is that not allowed?

You're basically illustrating that RevLeft is what Glenn Beck would call a "thug-ocracy"

Edit: never mind, no matter what I say you're going to just consider it "trolling" and "spamming", trash it, and use it as an excuse to ban me.

Look, forget about RevLeft internal policy and who's doing what here. Find out EXACTLY why you were restricted and explain why you either were misinterpreted, misspoke or how your beliefs are consistant with RevLeft regulations. It's easy as that. Arguing with mods gets you EREHWON around here.

Good luck.

[Agrippa]

I know why I was restricted. Some Trotskyite goated me into making a comment about how the production of latex condoms is ecologically disruptive. This was likely removed from the blatant context of me advocating for the continued production of latex condoms in a hypothetical communist scenario due to their medical necessity.

To be fair, I did say that once mega-STDs like HIV/AIDS were eliminated, production of latex condoms would no longer be necessary. However, practically speaking, that basically means never, since there's no real cure for HIV (that's not to say AIDS can't be treated, but there's a difference between treatment and cure) and forcing people with HIV not to have children is against my libertarian principles.

But it doesn't matter. I'm sure I've been accused of being a primitivist prude who admires Pol Pot and wants to stone homosexuals, outlaw penicillin, and reinstate dowries behind the closed doors of the Commie Club. Even in the completely fraudulent "justice" spectacles of advanced capitalist states such as the USA and the PRC, the accused are allowed to be present for legal proceedings in order to defend their position, something that is clearly not the case in regards to RevLeft's moderation policy. (It doesn't matter, since RevLeft is only a message board, but it does illustrate what sort of "communist" future society these people invision)

Again, I am not a primitivist. My general attitude towards industrialism and primitivism, again, is found within the pages of Postone's Time, Labor, and Social Domination, Kazcynski's The Truth About Primitive Life, and Federici's Caliban and the Witch. The combination of these three works sums it all up much more thoroughly and extensively than I ever can, especially within the confines of an Internet discussion forum.

I doubt any of the CC members who voted to ban me has ever read any of these three texts, nor is it likely they would accept my book recommendations, much less approach them with an open-mind. However, anyone who does take my book recommendations will learn that A) anti-industrialism is definitely the natural conclusion of a revolutionary leftist stance and that B) not all critics of industrialism are "anarcho-primitivists", and in fact many of them are themselves the harshest critics of "anarcho-primitivism".

[Sam_b]

mega-STDs like HIV/AIDS were eliminated

HIV is not solely a sexually transmitted disease.

[Agrippa]

Irrelevant. Stop chattering.

(Edit: Is there even such a thing as a disease that's "solely sexually transmitted"?)

[Jack]

Genital herpes, genital warts.

[Agrippa]

Both of those diseases can be contracted without having sex. This is obviously nothing but irrelevant chatter that completely fails in addressing my central point.

I'd prefer that irrelevant chit-chat be elliminated. I don't want Fuserg9 to use this as an excuse to keep deleting my posts.

[Agrippa]

To keep things on-topic, here's another reason my restriction was "unfair":


It's crap that you were restricted.
Why are you restricted?!
It's a shame.. I loved your posts. What's the word on getting unrestricted?[...] I honestly think the CC has a big bias against us anarchists
Just wondering exactly which post got you restricted. [...] I was annoyed when I registered here to find that primitivist discussion is verboten, since I myself hold very conflicting ideas in that regard, which I continue to try to work out.All from PMs and visitor messages I've received, the authors of which will remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

(my apologies for quoting friends without permission)

I've also been told that the decision to restrict me was made on a 26 to 23 vote - meaning only a slim majority wanted me gone. If this is really the Commie Club's way of eliminating "undesirables", a more, for lack of a better word, "democratic" method should really be developed.

I am a very popular poster, well regarded as contributing constructively to the conversation. and I am a revolutionary Leftist. (The only people who have an axe to grind with me are the PSL Stalinoids and the self-described technocrats, both of which are bourgeois ideologies that should be restricted to OI) Even Leninists liked me, despite my flamboyant anarchism. So why am I restricted?

[Led Zeppelin]

I honestly think the CC has a big bias against us anarchists

The majority of the Admins/Mods are anarchists, the majority of the CC are anarchists, yet they have a bias against anarchists?

Seems like a bit of unhealthy paranoia.

EDIT: As a note, I didn't vote to restrict Agrippa and don't necessarily believe he should have been. The restriction process for non-CC members is unfair as it is anyway, given the fact that they are excluded from the process while CC members get to defend their case openly in the CC forum. This is why many reactionaries are still around in the CC (and even in Mod positions) while others like Agrippa get restricted.

[BobKKKindle$]

So why am I restricted?Because there's an evil Leninist conspiracy to deprive everyone who fails to kneel down and pray to the glorious leader of their freedom of speech, just like we want to burn every last tree in the world for the sake of it :ninja:

And no, I haven't read any of the books you recommended, nor do I plan to, because debates about primitivism (an irrelevant ideological grouping much like your own variant of anti-industrialism which in any case doesn't seem to be distinct from primitivism despite your attempts to cover up your desire to abolish condoms and vaccines once we live in your wilderness paradise, without video games or Ipods) are much less interesting than the kinds of things I am currently reading about.

Another thing, whether people like you or not is irrelevant. Personally I don't because you're a primitivist who wants to take way my right to use condoms. Oh yeah, you're also an anti-Han racist.

[Decolonize The Left]

I've also been told that the decision to restrict me was made on a 26 to 23 vote - meaning only a slim majority wanted me gone. If this is really the Commie Club's way of eliminating "undesirables", a more, for lack of a better word, "democratic" method should really be developed.

Regardless of your pleading, you will be unrestricted due to board policy. Your restriction vote was not sufficiently conclusive (margin of 3) and hence you will be unrestricted. The policy states that the margin must be 4.

- August

[Blackscare]

I am a very popular poster, well regarded as contributing constructively to the conversation.Jumping from 4 sympathy posts to claiming you know revleft's general opinion of you is quite a stretch.


and I am a revolutionary Leftist.You're a closet primativist, so no.


(The only people who have an axe to grind with me are the PSL Stalinoids and the self-described technocrats,Nope, I'm neither and I dislike you (for the same reasons as BK with the addition of my hatred for your arbitrary twisting of the meaning of terms).


both of which are bourgeois ideologies that should be restricted to OI)Funny that you're complaining about the injustice of your own restriction and at the same time calling that others be restricted. Let me see, what is more progressive? Anti-industrialism or calling for the automation of industry? Well, have a look at the definition of progress and get back to me.
Really, technocracy isn't so much it's own ideology as the logical end point of socialist production modes. Certainly doesn't require it's own group, but regardless there is nothing reactionary about it. Also, you'd almost have to intentionally deprive yourself of information about the PSL in order to try to paint them all as "Stalinoids" (another meaningless, slanderous term from you). I'd assume that you're referring to Kassad, who is a big supporter of the PSL?





Even Leninists liked me, despite my flamboyant anarchism. So why am I restricted?Jesus Christ you really have an ego on you, if you think that somehow your "flamboyant anarchism" (whatever that means) really raises eyebrows on revleft. You're far from the first anarchist on this site. People generally don't like you because your ideas are shit. There's a lot of room within the realm of "anarchism" for stupidity, don't hide behind anarchist persecution because you can't defend your own particular views.

I'm an anarchist and I think you're a dunce.

Also, stop painting it as if you're some revleft folk hero being persecuted by an unpopular minority, remember that you still lost in a simple majority, which at least means that your claims of intense popularity can't be true. Trying to marginalize the (majority) that apparently dislike you buy slinging sectarian mud (ironically and, again, hypocritically of you, considering that you're claiming the action taken against you was an act of crass sectarianism) is uncalled for.

[Black Dagger]

The majority of the Admins/Mods are anarchists, the majority of the CC are anarchists, yet they have a bias against anarchists?

Seems like a bit of unhealthy paranoia.

Actually this is untrue.

The majority of mods are marxists (by a large number), the majority of admins however are anarchists. As for the CC numbers, i suspect you are also incorrect, even based on this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/groups-and-representation-t107985/index.html?t=107985)flawed data it's clear anarchists are not the majority of CC members.



Ideological Group - CC Members (Size)

Anarchists - 41 (252 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=2))
Revolutionary Marxists- 30 (94 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=12))
Trotskyists - 26 (93 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=13))
Left Communists - 15 (88 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=9))
Luxemburgists - 12 (38 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=67))
Marxist-Leninists(de facto) - 10 (79 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=46))
Maoists - 8 (60 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=10))
Hoxhaist - 7 (40 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=viewmembers&groupid=7))

Totals - 147 (744)
Avg - 18.6 (93)

Note: there is overlapping especially with Revolutionary Marxists.

This survey is not really a good source though, granted, it also excludes anarchist HPGers who usually have very different politics to other anarchists (and would be group most inclined to support Agrippa's restriction).

[Led Zeppelin]

Actually this is untrue.

The majority of mods are marxists (by a large number), the majority of admins however are anarchists.

It seems you are correct, the majority of Mods are indeed non-anarchists (not necessarily "Marxists" by a large number I would say, though then we're getting into differences between a Marxist-Leninist, Maoist and Trotskyist...).


As for the CC numbers, i suspect you are also incorrect, even based on this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/groups-and-representation-t107985/index.html?t=107985)flawed data it's clear anarchists are not the majority of CC members.

This survey is not really a good source though, granted, it also excludes anarchist HPGers who usually have very different politics to other anarchists (and would be group most inclined to support Agrippa's restriction).

Right, I meant a plurality, not a majority.

But the numbers indicate that the "conspiracy against anarchism" is just as made-up as the "anarcho-trot conspiracy" that we've come to know well on here.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Another thing, whether people like you or not is irrelevant. Personally I don't because you're a primitivist who wants to take way my right to use condoms.

me advocating for the continued production of latex condoms in a hypothetical communist scenario due to their medical necessity.

To be fair, I did say that once mega-STDs like HIV/AIDS were eliminated, production of latex condoms would no longer be necessary. However, practically speaking, that basically means never, since there's no real cure for HIV (that's not to say AIDS can't be treated, but there's a difference between treatment and cure) and forcing people with HIV not to have children is against my libertarian principles.

Lol, I like how Bob can't read.

Oh yeah, you're also an anti-Han racist.This is based on? If he's a racist, how come he's not banned?

[nuisance]

Personally I don't because you're a primitivist who wants to take way my right to use condoms.
That's very considerate towards others Bob, a welcomed change in your internet persona! With the knowledge that you won't be in the situation to use condoms, it must be hard to come to terms with and to infact actually agrue for something you won't be using shows an impressive amount of maturity. :smile:

[Havet]

I would like to ask any CC member to reconsider my restriction on the following arguments:

I used to sympathize with "right-libertarians" until the following comment from now suspended socialist made me understand something.

I had argued: Lew Rockwell is not a Libertarian, by using the following logic:



I can demonstrate why i am right with my usual flawless logic:

Proposition 1: Lew Rockwell wishes to use force by restricting borders.

Proposition 2: Libertarianism is a term used to define political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty.

Proposition 3: Restricting borders isn't maximizing individual liberty.

Conclusion: Lew Rockwell isn't a Libertarian.

To which socialist replied: "Then neither was Rothbard (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf) a libertarian nor the writers at LewRockwell.com who advocate slavery (http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf) etc. You must be the only libertarian on the planet. Congrats!"

Afterwards a comment from GDPD: This is just an observation, but I think hayenmill is going through that phase where he has become fed up with much of the bullshit in the "libertarian" tradition, namely the many blatantly un-libertarian things some thinkers like Rothbard and Hoppe have said and advocated, and thus seeks to distance himself from them and refers to them as being "vulgar." Interestingly enough, our previous resident ancap, dejavu, went through a very similar process before rejecting ancapism outright and embracing mutualism, after which he was promptly unrestricted.

All of this was taken from here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pissing-off-stormfront-t112820/index.html?p=1489876&highlight=hayenmill+libertarian+lewrockwell#post14 89876).

And i can understand what he is saying completely. If to be a right winger or common libertarian or a dickhead ancap is to accept any restriction on individual liberties and engage in idiotic comments such as racism, anti-immigrant policies and the like, then i was never a right-winger nor a libertarian.

After that I said:

Well i'm beginning to be aware that i cannot hold my definitions against the whole of the world

if for most people libertarianism embraces some sort of stupidty like slavery or force to separate races then i am not a libertarian.

But yes i have been recently embracing more anarcho-pluralism and various aspects of mutualism.

And now i can clearly see how most of these ancaps have a lot of flawed logic (rights speech, using self-ownership when its a meaningless concept, so on, idiotic assertion of slavery, etc).

I can confidently say that I have been reading some Mutualist writtings (as seen here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-theory-value-t112448/index.html)) and I basically agree with almost everything Proudhon and other writters initially proposed. This is why i now fully support mutualism as the end-result of the society i find fairer and better.

And i'm using the word mutualism as being" an anarchist school of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_school_of_thought) which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon), who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production), either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)."

This is a "bump" of the previous post after more than 2 weeks since the initial request. Loveschach actually PMed me to give me a chance to explain why I think I should be unrestricted. But after my reply I haven't heard from him since.

I appreciate any time you care to dedicate to this matter.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yo I should be rerestricted.

I'm fuckin active duty US military.

Soon enough I'll be qualified to push a button that'll launch some shit that'll end life on Earth.

Rerestrict me, for reals.

[pol pot-lawyer]

Hello people. My account has been unrightfuly banned. revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=25299
I have been banned because of "racism and anti-semitism"
However this is not the case, I have been accused so because I haven't elaborated immediately what I meant. I believe this came from the topic "antisemitism" and "immigration in UK".

At first sight of my posts I was accused, but afterwards, when I detailed my views to those same accusers, even they accepted I am no anti-semite, no xenophobe or racist. I am making this effort because I KNOW I am no dang fash and that nobody can accuse me of it or proove it.

If in the end it comes down to nobody believing me, I will not try to create another account, I just wont visit it any more.

I expect at least a chance to defend myself:(

[Pogue]

You've just made it worse :)

[pol pot-lawyer]

You've just made it worse :)

how can it be worse??? I've been banned!
on the other hand I see that every NEW thread has at least one person on it already banned. I think this is an active purge based on logocratic BS. check what logocracy is on wikipedia.

[Bud Struggle]

Yo I should be rerestricted.

I'm fuckin active duty US military.

Soon enough I'll be qualified to push a button that'll launch some shit that'll end life on Earth.

Rerestrict me, for reals.

You qualified in balistic missiles? The Palm Beach Squadron of Sophisticated Bourgeoise Gentlemen is looking for qualified members.

Pay $10, 000 a month. If you get into the CC--$20,000 a month!

;)

We have eleven CC members already.

[Pogue]

how can it be worse??? I've been banned!
on the other hand I see that every NEW thread has at least one person on it already banned. I think this is an active purge based on logocratic BS. check what logocracy is on wikipedia.

i'm alright thanks mate

[#FF0000]

The Palm Beach Squadron of Sophisticated Bourgeoise Gentlemen

I was looking for a clever acronym here. I was disappointed.

[Kukulofori]

I'm with Pol Pot here. Dude did absolutely nothing worth banning.

MAYBE constructing his posts in such a way as to be intentionally inflammatory (he said so himself) but that's a slap on the wrist, not a ban.

[Bud Struggle]

I was looking for a clever acronym here. I was disappointed.

You'd be suprised how hard I have to work around here to be intertaining, topical and a little bit funny.
:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

You'd be suprised how hard I have to work around here to be intertaining, topical and a little bit funny.
:rolleyes:

I haven't noticed







:cool:

[Havet]

Hey loveschach, how's my unrestriction proposal going? Thought i might add some threads I made to help CC members become more acquainted with my views:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/just-remind-you-t114828/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-anarchists-dont-t114834/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/five-easy-steps-t114826/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-theory-value-t112448/index.html

enjoy

[anticap]

I sincerely dislike speaking out against someone having their shackles removed, so much so that I'd almost rather bite my tongue and deal with the discomfort that would result from it, but I'm compelled by my profound distaste for "free market" nonsense to voice my opposition (FWIW) to hayenmill's request.

I joined this forum because it's the "home of the revolutionary left"; I didn't join it to wade through the same old nonsense arguments that I have to deal with everywhere else. This forum is already far more welcoming toward ideological opponents than those opponents are toward us: we provide them with their own guest house!

I have nothing negative to say about hayenmill's demeanor, but the fact of the matter is that s/he is a market advocate, and I don't think any of us wants to find that garbage strewn all over the place, no matter how pleasantly it's presented. It's one thing to go looking for it when we choose to engage it, but quite another to have it imposed on us, incessantly.

I'm glad to know that hayenmill has abandoned the most extreme versions of market ideology, and I hope s/he continues to advance beyond markets altogether, at which point I'd be happy to see the chains come off.

[deLarge]

By free market anti-capitalist, does he mean that he is a mutualist? I would have thought mutualism would be acceptable on the forum.

[anticap]

I do believe hayenmill is a mutualist, yes. And mutualism is among the least ugly market ideologies that I'm aware of. But the market system is a huge problem in and of itself, from our perspective. I cannot fathom a "revolutionary leftist" who would advocate that system.

Frankly, I'm deeply suspicious of any attempts to make the market seem palatable.

[deLarge]

I do believe hayenmill is a mutualist, yes. And mutualism is among the least ugly market ideologies that I'm aware of. But the market system is a huge problem in and of itself, from our perspective. I cannot fathom a "revolutionary leftist" who would advocate that system.

Frankly, I'm deeply suspicious of any attempts to make the market seem palatable.

Wouldn't any non-authoritarian strain of anarchism (for instance, anarchism without adjectives) necessarily allow for the existence of some type of market?