Unfair Restrictions IV [Archive]

7th November 2009, 13:21

Last one overpassed 500 replies some time now, so here is a new one, but lets make it clear from the start.This is a thread for you restricted members to question your restriction if you feel that you were misjudged by the mod/admin team, but this is not the thread for your whine fest.Just express your point that you disagree with not overdoing it.Beside restricted members questionning their restriction, this thread is "open" just for posts asking for clarifications from the members in question.So if you dont fall in one of the above "categories" then simply dont post in here.This threads have been a pain in the ass of mods to mod it.
So dont spam, dont post pictures, and dont make 100 posts whinnying for your restriction, we get what you are saying from the first time.

Havet

7th November 2009, 17:38

Unrestrict me or change your policy towards mutualists.

Pogue

7th November 2009, 17:48

Unrestrict me or change your policy towards mutualists.

Why would we do that.

Havet

7th November 2009, 18:50

Why would we do that.

Either unrestrict me because i'm a mutualist

Or restrict currently unrestricted mutualists, if that is the majority decision of this website.

For me specifically? I'm generally amusing, provocative, fierce debater, have many common revolutionary leftist ideas, etc

I'll grant you that we have different opinions about workers, but its merely on the way to achieve a better condition for them, not the end result.

RGacky3

7th November 2009, 18:53

NO ONE, claims to not want better conditions for workers.

Havet

7th November 2009, 19:00

NO ONE, claims to not want better conditions for workers.

Ok

I'll be happy to continue the ignored debate started in my other (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-royal-mailing-t120363/index6.html?t=120363&page=6) threads (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-down-drain-t118766/index8.html).

Rosa Provokateur

8th November 2009, 06:16

So I placed a request for un-restriction in the last thread and so far haven't heard anything as of late. Is it still under discussion?

8th November 2009, 08:38

So I placed a request for un-restriction in the last thread and so far haven't heard anything as of late. Is it still under discussion?

Your case was discussed, and i think the result is pretty obvious.You can "try again" in some time. If you have something to say, save it until then, now it offers nothing.You can PM me, another mod, an admin, a CCer whinnying on this decision, but please dont do this here.

Hayenmill:I told in the first post that we dont need 100 posts to get that you want unrestricted.We got it the first time.

Fuserg9:star:

Pogue

8th November 2009, 10:30

Either unrestrict me because i'm a mutualist

Or restrict currently unrestricted mutualists, if that is the majority decision of this website.

For me specifically? I'm generally amusing, provocative, fierce debater, have many common revolutionary leftist ideas, etc

I'll grant you that we have different opinions about workers, but its merely on the way to achieve a better condition for them, not the end result.

You were a 'libertarian'. You had a viciously anti-working class ideology. Then you played around with the concept of the free market a little bit, re-branded yourself a 'left lbiertarian', maintained a focus on the free market as your main issue, and now you expect us to beleive you are a genuine revolutionary leftist who beleives in class struggle and wants to see a violent revolution too overthrow capitalism.

Nothing you have done has anything genuine in it, your just a intellectual who is having fun playing around with abstract theory and so you don't deserve to be urnestricted, you don't have socialist politics.

Havet

8th November 2009, 12:03

Pardon me Fuserg9, but i really have to reply to this

You were a 'libertarian'.

Yes. An anarcho-capitalist more precisely.

You had a viciously anti-working class ideology. Then you played around with the concept of the free market a little bit,

I suppose.

re-branded yourself a 'left lbiertarian', maintained a focus on the free market as your main issue, and now you expect us to beleive you are a genuine revolutionary leftist who beleives in class struggle and wants to see a violent revolution too overthrow capitalism.

Given my better understanding of some of my arguments, I naturally concluded lef-libertarian was a best umbrella term for my ideas.

I DON'T want to see a VIOLENT revolution, but if it has to be done, so be it. I will help. In fact, since the start, I always proposed counter-economics as a way to weaken the State so the revolution was less costly in human lives and in other costs.

Of course, I still want to overthrow Capitalism.

Nothing you have done has anything genuine in it, your just a intellectual who is having fun playing around with abstract theory and so you don't deserve to be urnestricted, you don't have socialist politics.

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Ele'ill

8th November 2009, 14:02

I can see this is off to a good start.

Pogue

8th November 2009, 15:39

Pardon me Fuserg9, but i really have to reply to this

Yes. An anarcho-capitalist more precisely.

I suppose.

Given my better understanding of some of my arguments, I naturally concluded lef-libertarian was a best umbrella term for my ideas.

I DON'T want to see a VIOLENT revolution, but if it has to be done, so be it. I will help. In fact, since the start, I always proposed counter-economics as a way to weaken the State so the revolution was less costly in human lives and in other costs.

Of course, I still want to overthrow Capitalism.

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Nothing here convinces me that your a revolutionary leftist who understands class conflict, etc. I think you just a libertarian whos trying to beg it back onto the main board.

Havet

8th November 2009, 17:21

Nothing here convinces me that your a revolutionary leftist who understands class conflict, etc. I think you just a libertarian whos trying to beg it back onto the main board.

Here's my thoughts on class theory, from an agorist POV:

“Agorism and Marxism agree on the following premise: human
society can be divided into at least two classes; one class is
characterized by its control of the State and its extraction of un-
earned wealth from the other class. Furthermore, agorists and
Marxists will often point to the same people as members of the
overclass and underclass, especially agreeing on what each
considers the most blatant cases. The differences arise as one
moves to the middle of the social pyramid.

“Agorists and Marxists perceive a class struggle which must con-
tinue until a climactic event which will resolve the conflict. Both
sides perceive select groups which will lead the victims against
their oppressors. The Marxists call these groups of high class
consciousness ‘vanguards’ and then extract even more aware
elements designated ‘elites of the vanguard.’ Agorists perceive a
spectrum of consciousness amongst the victims as well, and also
perceive the most aware elements as the first recruits for the
revolutionary cadre. With the exception of ‘intellectuals,’ the
Marxists and agorists sharply disagree on who these most
progressive elements are.”

I also believe on the necessity of a revolution based on this:

At this phase transition between 3 and 4 we have the last unleashing of violence by the Ruling Class of the State to suppress those elements that would bring them to justice for all past state crimes. The State's intellectuals perceive that its authority has failed and all will be lost; things must be reversed now or never. The NLA must prevent premature awareness of this status or premature action on this awareness. This is the final strategic goal of the NLA.
When the State unleashes its final wave of suppression - and is successfully resisted - this is the definition of Revolution. Once realization has occurred that the State no longer can plunder and pay-of its parasitical class, the enforcers will switch sides to those better able to pay them and the State will rapidly implode into a series of pockets of Statism in backward area - if any."

If you have a grudge against libertarians just say so. But that would result in a confession of preference towards authoritarians.

If other left-libertarians and libertarian socialists are tolerated, why can't I as well?

#FF0000

8th November 2009, 18:45

If other left-libertarians and libertarian socialists are tolerated, why can't I as well?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/FONT]

Well, now it's because you seem to think Konkin is a revolutionary leftist.

Havet

8th November 2009, 19:07

Well, now it's because you seem to think Konkin is a revolutionary leftist.

I'm talking of Parker, Genecosta and IcarusAngel

Pogue

8th November 2009, 19:58

Here's my thoughts on class theory, from an agorist POV:

I also believe on the necessity of a revolution based on this:

If you have a grudge against libertarians just say so. But that would result in a confession of preference towards authoritarians.

If other left-libertarians and libertarian socialists are tolerated, why can't I as well?
[/FONT]

I've already explained I don't think you've genueinly adopted revolutionary, class based positions. I think you've basically tried to readjust your perverse ideology into a form you think you can justify to us and I'm not falling for it.

Havet

8th November 2009, 20:07

I've already explained I don't think you've genueinly adopted revolutionary, class based positions. I think you've basically tried to readjust your perverse ideology into a form you think you can justify to us and I'm not falling for it.

No, you've just made it blatantly clear you have a grudge against me. You never explained anything. Better, you don't care about listening to my part of the story.

It's like you don't even bother arguing anymore.

Pogue

8th November 2009, 21:12

No, you've just made it blatantly clear you have a grudge against me. You never explained anything. Better, you don't care about listening to my part of the story.

It's like you don't even bother arguing anymore.

I have a grudge against your ideology and attitude, its tainted with this 'American libertarian' (as in the economic ideas) bullshit.

Havet

8th November 2009, 21:30

I have a grudge against your ideology and attitude, its tainted with this 'American libertarian' (as in the economic ideas) bullshit.

Like I said, you don't even bother to argue, so there's no point in me talking with you if you bring nothing to the conversation other than ad homs.

Jazzratt

8th November 2009, 21:35

Havet

8th November 2009, 21:51

If there is no point in talking to him don't fucking talk to him. Don't drag down another unfair restrictions thread with your bullshit.I completely agree with Pogue in this instance, your politics are abhorrent and I would sooner leave this site than see it taken over by people with your anti-worker politics.

Is that why you so eloquently refrained from answering my replies to your posts in my "anti-worker" threads?

P.S: I know i'm completely stretching it, but it would be rude of me not to answer to provocations and unfounded critics.

Decolonize The Left

12th November 2009, 01:28

Well, now it's because you seem to think Konkin is a revolutionary leftist.

Loveschach's point is key here. Your "left-libertarian"/anarcho-capitalism/Agorism position is not one of the revolutionary left. This type of theory is a) not concerned with class warfare as the primary means of social movement, b) is concerned primarily with non-action in politics, c) advocates the creation of an alternative market rather than class action against the state and capitalist class.

- August

Havet

12th November 2009, 13:47

Loveschach's point is key here. Your "left-libertarian"/anarcho-capitalism/Agorism position is not one of the revolutionary left. This type of theory is a) not concerned with class warfare as the primary means of social movement

Neither is mutualism, because it approaches from a more individualist/personal level, yet mutualism is still regarded as revolutionary leftism.

b) is concerned primarily with non-action in politics

Many anarchists here also find reformism useless. By what standard do you criticize an ideology for that and praise another for the same thing?

c) advocates the creation of an alternative market rather than class action against the state and capitalist class.

First of all, this is a strawman. Not all left-libertarians agree with agorism just as there are differences between communism itself.

Second, this alternative market can be proven to be direct action against the state and the capitalist class. Although not usually defended from a class angle, it provides an alternative framework of action for those who are being exploited by the State, especially the working class

Jazzratt

13th November 2009, 11:27

Bud Struggle

14th November 2009, 00:00

Right. Your arguments stop here. Post here if you want to be unrestricted not if you want to have yet another thread on the free fucking market. If you do want such a thread you can always start one.

You guys get your heads together about what is a Commie and what is not. I can understand that Olif is out--but the difference between Hayen and Deja--I don't have a clue. Not to say they don't disagree--but it seems about, well whatever.

These guys are definitely over my (and it seems the Commie Club's) head.

Let them in and move on.

BTW: this is the future of the Revolution--it will be out of your hands in the long run.

SouthernBelle82

14th November 2009, 06:08

I'm still hoping to get unrestricted but haven't heard anything. :\

14th November 2009, 09:16

I'm still hoping to get unrestricted but haven't heard anything. :\

Why do you want unrestricted?What were you restricted for, and what changed since?

Bud Struggle you are challenging your luck, thats all i got to say, and its, again, the last time.

Skooma Addict

18th November 2009, 03:07

Bright Banana Beard

18th November 2009, 03:35

I am just wondering out of pure curiosity, what would it take for me to get unrestricted?

Don't worry, I have no desire at all to get my restriction lifted, or to post in any other forum besides the OI.

Abandoning any kind of supporting market and private property, and see revolution as the only way where the humanity can improve itself.

Jazzratt

18th November 2009, 11:02

I am just wondering out of pure curiosity, what would it take for me to get unrestricted?

Don't worry, I have no desire at all to get my restriction lifted, or to post in any other forum besides the OI.

Well, there are a plethora of left-wing ideas. Adopt one and post consistently defending/advocating it or whatever and then wait. I'm aware you could only be pretending to have those ideas but it's no skin off my nose if people want to play at communism - although the motives escape me.

The Broke Cycle

26th November 2009, 05:10

I don't understand why I was restricted. I understand that my views are probably not in line with the majority of other users. That being said, I do not believe in capitalism, I do not hold disdain for the working class, and I agree totally with the Marxist analysis of capitalist society.

What I disagree with is the means. Worker control is over-rated. My first thread, "A Personal Issue with Unions," tried to initiate discussion of that point. But based on the response that I got, it seems to me that people here think that if I don't support unions, I necessarily disagree with class struggle.

That is absolutely not the case.

I agree that the bounty of the earth should be shared equally amongst all people. I agree that capitalism is a fundamentally awful system. I agree that workers need to have a big say in how their job is performed and rewarded.

I think a truly communist society should avoid the conflict/extortion/competition mindset (i.e. unions), and try instead to motivate people with the idea of cooperation. This does not mean I am a reactionary.

I think that no ideology is complete, and that where one fails, it should be modified. There are others way of making society equitable.

Some sort of official reasoning would be nice. Thank you.

Stranger Than Paradise

26th November 2009, 20:57

First of all

Worker control is over-rated.

Can you explain what this means and what you would advocate instead.

The Broke Cycle

26th November 2009, 22:31

Can you explain what this means and what you would advocate instead.

The traditional means of worker control, such as unions, should be considered bygones of an older era. The dominance of capitalism irrevocably demonstrates the power of the profit motive. Communists usually suggest we destroy this power; I think we should use it to achieve our goals.

Unions pit employees against managers; owners against workers; public interest versus private interest. That is what most here would call "class struggle." But a truly egalitarian society would not concern itself with class, but rather with goals.

The goals of communism should not be to destroy the profit motive, but rather to harness its energy and direct it towards desirable ends.

Here is a rough idea of what I would like society to look like:

All people would be provided with a basic salary. In today's terms, I am thinking around $25,000 (CDN) annually. This isn't in exchange for any labour; this is an annual gift provided by the government. Assuming that health care is universal and provided free of charge, this would be more than sufficient to provide a good life for people.

A person can choose one of two routes. They can be self-employed, working on their own without the help of another (i.e. a plumber), or they can choose to create or join a worker cooperative.

Those who work on their own would be allowed to keep the profits they make. But if they wanted to make more money, they must make a choice: either work more, or hire a person to help them.

If the business owner decided to hire a person to help them, then that business must be a worker cooperative. Profits must be split equally amongst all employees, or if there is a substantial amount of difference between level of job difficulties (i.e. a doctor's secretary versus a doctor), subject to a maximum ratio of no more then 3:1. To put it plainly, the business owner could make no more then three times that of his lowest earner; that means that if a company is doing well, and the owners want to reward themselves, they are going to have to reward everyone else too. Each person would forfeit 15-25% of their total profits to the State annually.

Upon death, all of a persons accumulated monetary assets would be forfeit to the State.

Although I am not sure of the math, I am fairly certain that a 15% additional-income tax, plus death forfeiture, would be enough to cover the annual stipend paid out by the government.

Such a system would harness the power of profit motive (thus minimizing resistance from the capitalists) while still ensuring that workers are the driving force behind the decisions being made.

Decolonize The Left

30th November 2009, 14:59

Bright Banana Beard

30th November 2009, 15:42

I wonder why SouthernBelle82 was restricted. Can anyone provides me the reason or a link?

RGacky3

6th December 2009, 12:03

I have one little question, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask it, but why is graymatter not restricted, it seams to be the guy is a free market type capitalist. Or am I missing something?

danyboy27

7th December 2009, 23:29

I wonder why SouthernBelle82 was restricted. Can anyone provides me the reason or a link?

monkeysmashes to heaven maybe?
anti-worker ideology, maybe?

blank

8th December 2009, 08:25

whine whine whine... i like it here. lot's of stupids running around to get their feelings hurt for being stupid racist or homophobe or sexist. i never leave this place. really just reflects the rl... just a fucking prison, and then you get all of these mindless that think they are free... frustrating until a certain point, then one can not help but laugh... am i gone insane? perhaps... in any case, never gonna fit in anywhere as whole world is at least 200 years behind one such as i at any thyme, and no ammount of people's war and if victorious, no ammount of socialist progression will ever get to the point of the communist world that i, as well as eryone else, is belongs in. the rest... they are merely trade unionist, but these they not understand yet... perhaps your offspring willcatch on after we have all died, or hss will become extinct. really, none of that shit matters, as we, and this whole star system, and even the galaxy is rather insignificant... you think that, let's just suppose for a second that... that if there were a god, that it would even take notice of our existence... think about it. and it is the thinking that if such a god or a dog does indeed notice is the whole flaw of thinking that leads up to that in the first place. this human cheuvenism...

Havet

8th December 2009, 17:32

blank

8th December 2009, 19:47

lol... anti-women
nah, not really relevant, but am aesexual

danyboy27

10th December 2009, 23:49

i got a question, since preacher are restricted, do you think believing in intelligent design is a form of preaching?

Decolonize The Left

11th December 2009, 00:31

i got a question, since preacher are restricted, do you think believing in intelligent design is a form of preaching?

No. It's just fucking stupid.

Preaching is generally understood as citing primary religious texts in an effort to convert others.

- August

Il-Peres

14th December 2009, 19:59

Dear mods and admins

last year I have posted some remarks which could be considered homophobic and I was thus restricted and can not post on the forums. I am very sorry about my remarks and I assure you they were not meant to incite hatred.

I would please like to be able to post again on your forums as I would like to participate in several discussions and would like to request opinions and feedbacks on revolutionary activities that happen in my country.

I again regret what I had written on your boards and I assure you that I will never again say such hurtful remarks on your forums. I am a fully tolerant person and it was a genuine mistake. I am also a left-winger and thus I bear no grudges nor hatred against any minority. Thanks in advance!

Il-Peres

Sam_b

15th December 2009, 00:28

I have no problem with homosexuals but if I would be a parent I would be terribly annoyed to have my kids watching somebody of that type in public

This is not something that could be 'considered' homophobic - it is homophobic. I also notice how you referred to Pride parades and demonstrations as 'freak shows'.

So very simply - what has changed? How do your opinions differ now, and why?

Il-Peres

15th December 2009, 21:42

What do you mean by what has changed? I was never a homophobic if you are speculating whether I converted because it was just an outburst of insults that I made and I deeply regret it.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th December 2009, 22:19

What do you mean by what has changed? I was never a homophobic if you are speculating whether I converted because it was just an outburst of insults that I made and I deeply regret it.

You suck at insulting and you should prove your not the kind of loser who discriminates against people purely because of who they are attracted to (I mean seriously come on how pathetic can you get) by arguing against the fuckheads that regularly infect revleft.

(or just go and ask bud about his views on gay marrige and poke him about it for abit and then your back in the hood)

Bud Struggle

15th December 2009, 23:28

(or just go and ask bud about his views on gay marrige and poke him about it for abit and then your back in the hood)

I have no problems with anyone marrying anyone with whom they choose to be married with. As long as it's above an age of concent and both parties agree to the union.

Havet

15th December 2009, 23:44

I have no problems with anyone marrying anyone with whom they choose to be married with. As long as it's above an age of concent and both parties agree to the union.

Yay! Bud came out of the closet! :lol:

danyboy27

16th December 2009, 04:48

hey, this is officially my 3rd attempt to be unrestricted.

i do believe anarchism combined with direct democracy is the most valid of the systems.

i am not sure that a violent revolution will bring that. I think that eventually states disapear, the more the time passes the more states are somehow fragmented. this is perfectly normal, people dosnt want to be bossed around by a big gargantuan structure that dosnt take their problems in consideration.

smaller cluster of population are more able to implement policies and rules representative of the need of the actual population.

anyway, that all folks.

Sam_b

16th December 2009, 08:05

I was never a homophobic

The quotes I have cited most certainly are homophobic. Why would you not want your children seeing 'their type'?

Il-Peres

16th December 2009, 11:42

I have no problem with children seeing or meeting homosexuals because they probably already have homosexual friends at school who have not yet developed their sexuality so that makes me not in favour of any form of Nazi-type segregation.

I'm in favour of civil marriages to homosexuals. I am not all in favour of adoption of children as I also believe that not even heterosexual couples have an absolute right to adopt children. However as a person who might humbily think i nrevolutionary terms, I do not believe the 'sexual emancipation', will bring a true democracy, same goes with 'religious' or 'political emancipation'. As I support the cause of homosexual rights, I believe that 'sexual emancipation' in some particular regions of the world such as Holland and metrpolitan cities such as Berlin and New York has advanced at a great extent. That's why revolutionaries should rather focus their aims in helping the homosexual communities who live under theocracies such as Malta and Iran. The Gay Pride in Malta is about the rights of homosexuals and to pressure political parties to be aware of gay rights and thus it is attended mostly by hetersexual people as homosexuals are yet still afraid, to exhibit themselves in public. On the other hand the Berlin gay pride is more like a big party rather than a protest.

If so called revolutionaries have a problem with a revolutionary attitude being taken on liberal issues, which fall short in destroying the state, than a problematic illussion has fallen onto the left making it think that the state will pave the way for a democratic society. Hegelian and/or ideological influence may ring a bell?

Yes my insults were bad and I excused myself but the question was do you expect my apology or will you keep talking about how an evil fuckhead I am ?

danyboy27

16th December 2009, 11:55

Bud Struggle

21st December 2009, 23:55

Did you guys ban New Tet? From what I read of his posts I thought he was a pretty good Commie. (But what do I know? :) )

Decolonize The Left

21st December 2009, 23:56

Did you guys ban New Tet? From what I read of his posts I thought he was a pretty good Commie. (But what do I know? :) )

New Tet was banned by CC vote for trolling.

- August

Decolonize The Left

22nd December 2009, 00:00

Yes my insults were bad and I excused myself but the question was do you expect my apology or will you keep talking about how an evil fuckhead I am ?

Look, I don't think you're an 'evil fuckhead.' The point here is that your posts run contrary to current board policy and as such you have been restricted.

- August

Bud Struggle

22nd December 2009, 01:02

New Tet was banned by CC vote for trolling.

- August

Thank you.

danyboy27

27th December 2009, 00:17

question about the recent change in the administration...
what is changed in the current restriction/unrestriction policies.
can pro life return to the normal board?
can sionist return to the normal board?
is there any new requirement to be unrestructed?
we would like to know.

27th December 2009, 10:42

can pro life return to the normal board?
:lol::lol: Not in a million years.

The rules are the same, the difference is that(for now) admin/nid team takes the decision on restricting/unrestricting.

danyboy27

27th December 2009, 18:38

:lol::lol: Not in a million years.

The rules are the same, the difference is that(for now) admin/nid team takes the decision on restricting/unrestricting.

okay..can i be unrestricted then?

27th December 2009, 21:18

okay..can i be unrestricted then?

Why?You are not a capitalist anymore?You are a revolutionary leftist?Can you prove it?If yes, then yes you will be unrestricted.

danyboy27

27th December 2009, 21:59

Why?You are not a capitalist anymore?You are a revolutionary leftist?Can you prove it?If yes, then yes you will be unrestricted.

look, i fully support a free society without capitalism.
i firmly believe that the current system undermine progress.
do i believe in revolution? well, not in the same way you guy do, but yes, thing must change, even if it take time.

Bud Struggle

27th December 2009, 23:05

Fuserg9: if I may just say something about dany--he really never was a Capitalist in any literal sense. I think in the beginning when he got here he was somewhat confused by all the terms for things and all of their complicated meanings. I think he did do some experimenting with some ideas (on an intellectual basis) and got himself restricted but that was long ago.

I'm sure he can bring up plenty of posts where he passed Communist muster--we like him a lot here in OI, but he's one of you guys--not one of us.

Bud

Pogue

27th December 2009, 23:07

look, i fully support a free society without capitalism.
i firmly believe that the current system undermine progress.
do i believe in revolution? well, not in the same way you guy do, but yes, thing must change, even if it take time.

Maybe if you elaborate a bit i could try and bust you out of here.

I hear lning your trousers with pouches is a good way to dispose of the dirt.

danyboy27

27th December 2009, 23:46

Maybe if you elaborate a bit i could try and bust you out of here.

I hear lning your trousers with pouches is a good way to dispose of the dirt.

okay.

i dont think that a society ruled by a market is actually work verry well, i dont see the point of managing good with an artificial scarcity. it would be better if we could access to good without bothering about making an actual profit out of it. Even tho i am against a market, i dont see competition has a bad thing. if 2 group of worker want to compete to make the best beer or the best wine, that perfectly fine. Personally, i would be thrilled to be able to do such thing, working to make a good product in order to compete with another group of people without having to stress about the money and just focus on the quality of the good.

anyway, this sort of competition could be allowed or not, depending of the region people live. Different people, differents laws, differents needs.

I dont really believe super duper governement are qualified to ensure that the people are treated fairly. its up to the people to decide what good for their society.

If you want to know what have i done these day in direct action well, my best i guess. I work hard everyday and i try to raise consciousness to the people i am close.

there is a lot of stuff organised by stalinist/maoist/third worldist in my region, but i really dont support all this sectarian bullshit.

i want to be free, i dont want to join a freaking cult.

that it.

Luisrah

28th December 2009, 22:40

Even tho i am against a market, i dont see competition has a bad thing. if 2 group of worker want to compete to make the best beer or the best wine, that perfectly fine. Personally, i would be thrilled to be able to do such thing, working to make a good product in order to compete with another group of people without having to stress about the money and just focus on the quality of the good.

That is possible in a communist society.

Actually, a communist society foments that thing. If people are no longer restrained by the worries of making profit so that they can survive, art will pop up everywhere because people can dedicate more time on things they like, instead of spending the biggest part of their lives at work, while it's unnecessary.

So, while today, a guy who would really like to make a painting but doesn't really know how to, has to continue to work somewhere else to survive, in a communist society, that person can make painting his work, for example

In a communist society, the people is free of today's super heavy work, and can pursue their goals in a much easier way.
Engels even said that only when communism is around the world, will the History and development of Humanity really begin.
Just imagine everything. Scientists, artists etc..., all people that used to work in factories would pursue their dreams and make our technological and scientifical advances of now seem like baby steps

Havet

28th December 2009, 23:56

So, while today, a guy who would really like to make a painting but doesn't really know how to, has to continue to work somewhere else to survive, in a communist society, that person can make painting his work, for example

Why can't someone make painting his work in the current system?

danyboy27

29th December 2009, 00:13

That is possible in a communist society.

Actually, a communist society foments that thing. If people are no longer restrained by the worries of making profit so that they can survive, art will pop up everywhere because people can dedicate more time on things they like, instead of spending the biggest part of their lives at work, while it's unnecessary.

So, while today, a guy who would really like to make a painting but doesn't really know how to, has to continue to work somewhere else to survive, in a communist society, that person can make painting his work, for example

In a communist society, the people is free of today's super heavy work, and can pursue their goals in a much easier way.
Engels even said that only when communism is around the world, will the History and development of Humanity really begin.
Just imagine everything. Scientists, artists etc..., all people that used to work in factories would pursue their dreams and make our technological and scientifical advances of now seem like baby steps

i know that. but then again this is up to the people to decide.

#FF0000

29th December 2009, 03:54

Why can't someone make painting his work in the current system?

They can, but making it his work is the problem

Luisrah

29th December 2009, 12:36

They can, but making it his work is the problem

Exactly.

If you aren't amazingly talented or have someone to give you a good help in getting famous, you're pretty much doomed to paint non-recognised or not so good paintings in your little spare time.

The Broke Cycle

8th January 2010, 01:04

^^^
You will not be unrestricted. You have effectively advocated a tamed form of capitalism here, with expanded government influence and power, retention of the profit motive and in effect, or at least it seems to me, you are laying the grounds for fascism.

- August

Fair enough. I understand the "revolutionary left" prefers outdated ideologies from a hundred and fifty years ago, and has no interest in accomplishing real, tangible goals. Pretty typical, really.

No wonder the capitalists are winning.

Cheers.

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 01:45

Decolonize The Left

8th January 2010, 05:56

Fair enough. I understand the "revolutionary left" prefers outdated ideologies from a hundred and fifty years ago, and has no interest in accomplishing real, tangible goals. Pretty typical, really.

No wonder the capitalists are winning.

Cheers.

This post alone shows how distanced you are from any sort of real leftist struggle. Furthermore, this thread is for appealing unfair restrictions (which you have done, and have been denied), not for pouting about the response you received.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the rules of this forum but they stand - ideologies which are not revolutionary leftist are not permitted on the main board.

- August

ComradeMan

8th January 2010, 10:09

This post alone shows how distanced you are from any sort of real leftist struggle. Furthermore, this thread is for appealing unfair restrictions (which you have done, and have been denied), not for pouting about the response you received.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the rules of this forum but they stand - ideologies which are not revolutionary leftist are not permitted on the main board.

- August

Unless it is supporting Islamist groups, Robert Mugabe or whatever then it's fine.

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 10:53

Unless it is supporting Islamist groups, Robert Mugabe or whatever then it's fine.

Stop.

Fucking.

Spamming.

You got 3 infractions in two fucking days.

ComradeMan

8th January 2010, 17:59

Why is it spamming? It seems to me that spamming is becoming just a word we use when it comes to anything we don't like. Who the hell is spamming? This is an unfair restrictions thread in which people are, I presume, able to air their opinion freely and point out why they feel injustice has been done. The comments are made directly in relation to the whole matter of the restriction issue.

I feel aggreived that my posts were spammed all over the place, by some people who presume themselves to be mods and admins too, and as for the weak "verbal warnings" which mean sweet f.a. as a token gesture to tryn and convince people that there is some kind of justice, well, save it.

If I have been restricted and branded reactionary then I feel I am fully within my rights to point out the reactionaries that seem to carry on with impunity.

La legge è uguale per tutti---- o per nessuno?

Havet

8th January 2010, 18:32

La legge è uguale per tutti---- o per nessuno?

idealmente, almeno

#FF0000

8th January 2010, 20:53

words

1) It's spamming because it was a snarky comment in a thread that is for people to ask to be unrestricted.
2) It's the internet get off your cross you big baby.

mikelepore

9th January 2010, 06:24

ComradeMan was told, "... you have been restricted to the OI forum for your stance on Afghanistan and your soft liberal attitude towards the UN."

This is absolutely terrible. The fact is, there is no recognizable leftist or progressive position on Afghanistan, and there is no recognizable leftist or progressive position on the UN. Such positions exist only in the imaginations of the site administrators. What other thousands of mandatory viewpoints on every conceivable topic under the sun are people here required to hold?

Do the people who control this site want the site to be a place where everyone has to "walk on eggshells", being permanently cautious about being accused of saying the wrong thing? It's the most counterproductive trend I could possibly think of, and I imagine that if I were a police spy sent here to destroy the whole place it's just the thing that I would promote.

History repeats itself. Whenever and wherever a leftist community begins to get together, just a short time passes before it adopts as one of its main activities the practice of expelling its own people.

Sleeper

9th January 2010, 06:49

Mikelepore couldn't be more right about this, in some Forums on this board more than others, but I'm not going to point any fingers.

I've got less than a hundred posts, so I'm as close to without bias on this issue as you are going to get. Besides, I've defended the Admin/Mod position on the CC, so I'm pretty balanced with this whole thing.

But, what you have here is Admins/Mods wanting to throw down on people for having a personal opinion/preference on issues that do not have a formal leftist stance at all. What the Hell about Afghanistan?

Let's talk about income disparity, or maybe we can talk about how the press is owned/operated exclusively by and for the Ruling Class.

No, instead we have been bickering for the last three days over Afghanistan? The U.N.? Whether or not someone wants to have sex with a transexual?

Come on! I've seen better than this from this site and I've only been here for about two weeks.

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 16:27

Is it not spamming to post false quotes about people? Why do I get 20 point infractions when other people get verbal warnings? Hmmm

Anyway.

Until such times as anyone can demonstrate what exactly was reactionary about my position on Afghanistan and the UN, in my own words, and bearing in mind what other members have just mentioned, then my restriction is definitely unfair.

Opposing Ideologies should be renamed the "GULAG" and most, albeit not all, OI'ers should restyle themselves "Dissidents".:)

Havet

9th January 2010, 16:32

Opposing Ideologies should be renamed the "GULAG" and most, albeit not all, OI'ers should restyle themselves "Dissidents".:)

What's the point about restyling oneself as a dissident?

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 16:36

What's the point about restyling oneself as a dissident?

Because when I got restricted I found my description changed to "reactionary" by some anonymous entity and to which I take exception.

Seeing as I do not conform to the definition of reactionary (see below) I feel that I have been restricted for not following some or other diktat at RevLeft of which no one has been able to enlighten me, viz. the UN and Afghanistan. I therefore conclude that I am a dissident in a virtual gulag for some kind of re-education after my presumed showtrial. :)

Quick paste definition below:-

Reactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante). The term originated in the French Revolution, to denote the counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and socialism. Today the term is largely used by those on the political left pejoratively to refer to ideas they consider backwards, outdated and opposing to progress.

Sasha

9th January 2010, 16:41

Until such times as anyone can demonstrate what exactly was reactionary about my position on Afghanistan and the UN, in my own words, and bearing in mind what other members have just mentioned, then my restriction is definitely unfair.

your complaint is noted, now stop derailing this thread, verbal warning to comrade man and hayenmill

ComradeMan

9th January 2010, 17:03

your complaint is noted, now stop derailing this thread, verbal warning to comrade man and hayenmill

What? I'm discussing what I consider to be my unfair restriction in the UNFAIR RESTRICTIONS thread!

Bud Struggle

9th January 2010, 17:07

Because when I got restricted I found my description changed to "reactionary" by some anonymous entity and to which I take exception.

Just a note: "Reactionary" is just a default title thrown into the slot by the site software when one is put into OI. Everybody gets it. You can change it as soon as you like.

9th January 2010, 19:52

If you continue posting again and again, infractions will follow CM.

So dont spam, dont post pictures, and dont make 100 posts whinnying for your restriction, we get what you are saying from the first time.

From the opening post. Until then this is a PM warning for continuing derailing this thread.And its gona be the last one.

Decolonize The Left

13th January 2010, 23:18

This thread is for requests to be unrestricted, not discussion on topics which could be held elsewhere. I have trashed the off-topic posts.

- August

TheCuriousCommunist

15th January 2010, 01:26

Hey, I'm new here, and I was restricted because of my religion and my views on fascism. Psycho said specifically that "The OP is restricted for being an communist hating communist with fascist sympathy's and fundamentalist Buddhism". I do not have Fascist sympathies, I thought I was a fascist, and was mistaken about the true nature of Fascism. I said I was opposed to Maoism (which doesn't mean I hate all communists), and I advocate a Free Tibet. I was uninformed, and I'm trying to learn, I'm new at this. As being restricted for my religion, that is absolute discrimination against Buddhists. My religion should not concern RevLeft in the slightest. These are the reasons that I humbly propose that my restriction should be lifted. I'll be good, I promise. I'll try to learn. Please give me a second chance.:hammersickle:

#FF0000

15th January 2010, 03:53

It was your attitudes on fascism, specifically, that people took issue with.

My suggestion is to just chill out and 'continue your education' as it were here in OI.

People have been unrestricted before. I remember one specific case where a member was unrestricted and made a mod hardly a couple months later.

So don't sweat it too much. It's 100% possible to become a member in good standing again. :thumbup1:

Drace

17th January 2010, 02:58

MarxSchmarx

18th January 2010, 09:37

I am sorry. I didn't understand I was being discriminatory.
I still fight for the rights of all of humanity and against fascist leanings.

I found the restriction bit of an insult as it seems I was incorrectly labeled.
I repent!

Look mate, why did it take a restriction for you to acknowledge what you said about trans people was unacceptable? In the thread in the members forum you were quite unapologetic about what you said.

If you are serious about making up for it, there are plenty of homophobic, transphobic, and discrimantory posts in OI and OI learning. If you continue to make solid contributions to these, and demonstrate that you really do understand why pejorative comments towards minorities are unacceptable, you could get unrestricted.

For now, we can't afford to alienate solid comrades due to comments like yours.

ComradeMan

18th January 2010, 09:51

Drace's words were badly chosen and I don't defend him for that. But at the sime the whole thread was rather stupid in my opinion too. What the hell has a thread about who you would like to date got to do with anything on a revolutionary left forum, other than maybe in chit-chat? People's own sexual preference and whom they are attracted to was not, in my opinion, a subject that Marx touched upon. If I say I find brunettes and darker women more attractive than blondes does that make me a racist?

Someone made the valid point that if a thread were made "Would you date a woman?" and a gay man (justifiably) responded no, would that be misogynistic and sexist?

Although Dace responded badly the thread was a bad thread and was bound to cause ructions, as it was designed to cause ructions. You can't have serious issues debated along the lines of yes-no and crude binary analysis.

Drace

19th January 2010, 02:48

Look mate, why did it take a restriction for you to acknowledge what you said about trans people was unacceptable? In the thread in the members forum you were quite unapologetic about what you said.

I acknowledged that the use of the word "disgusting" was too strong and a mistake. However, in the thread, I was still looking for a legitimate discussion on transsexuals without presupposing that their condition was ultimately natural and necessary. And its not even that I took a trans-phobic attitude! I sincerely said that I was ill knowledge and wanted to educate myself saying something along the lines of "I'd be interested to see the scientific evidence".

Though even this proved earn a restriction. Wtf?

Here is a genuine leftist concerned with the battles of the working class and yet he is restricted from contributing for making a slight negative remark on transsexuals.

danyboy27

19th January 2010, 03:39

so, how anout my unrestriction??

Decolonize The Left

19th January 2010, 07:26

so, how anout my unrestriction??

There is an active poll in the moderator forum which closes in two days - you will know then.

- August

Drace

22nd January 2010, 01:39

Can I get unrestricted already so I can participate in the "Leftist Video Project (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=354)" already?
I was waiting for such a group since I joined the site and now I'm restricted when it pops up...

RedAnarchist

22nd January 2010, 01:47

Drace

22nd January 2010, 03:34

Other than to be able to post in OI and send private messages, it seems we aren't able to do anything else.

You should try the gulags for yourself once. :rolleyes:

ComradeMan

22nd January 2010, 11:05

Other than to be able to post in OI and send private messages, it seems we aren't able to do anything else.

You should try the gulags for yourself once. :rolleyes:

(To the sound of a sad balalaika tune and the howls wind blowing biting snow in a Siberian gale.....):)

Being in the gulag means that you can view groups you are already a member of. You can also post in groups you created but you cannot join new groups and you can't perform any actions in your own group. Your blog is also frozen too. You can receive neg rep but not thanks and you can't give thanks or rep either.

EDIT- I have just seen that the groups I was in have vanished from my page and I am no longer in them.

Drace

22nd January 2010, 23:40

It seems the only way I can get un restricted now is to undergo a sex change operation.

ComradeMan

23rd January 2010, 00:32

It seems the only way I can get un restricted now is to undergo a sex change operation.

Drace, that won't get you anywhere will it?

Have fun in the gulag with us, we are building a snowman outside...:D

Seriously though, I think you have to look at the issues surrounding trans-sexuality and the people it affects- it's not such a new phenomenon either. What annoys me is that in Italy there are a lot of trans- and people say that they are just drugged up prostitutes and this and that, but it is so unfair in a way because many of them cannot get any other employment and because of society's prejudices are forced into a very seedy and nasty world of drugs and sexploitation. A couple have been murdered this year in Italy after "strange" revelations about liasons with "powerful" men. Odd eh?

Decolonize The Left

23rd January 2010, 00:32

It seems the only way I can get un restricted now is to undergo a sex change operation.

Please cut this melodramatic shit out. Your restriction was discussed at length and remains, you would be far better off attempting constructive and productive posts than whiny stuff like this.

- August

Drace

23rd January 2010, 01:16

Please cut this melodramatic shit out. Your restriction was discussed at length and remains, you would be far better off attempting constructive and productive posts than whiny stuff like this.Well I was going to write more poltical blogs -- I can't. I wanted to respond to some topics in Learning, History, Politics -- I can't.
Getting tired of having to sent private messages to answer questions and so my only means of communication on this site is reduced to OI and posting useless shit in this thread while I wait for a fucking mod to clearly explain why I deserved a restriction.

Spanking me would even be more of a suitable punishment.

23rd January 2010, 01:26

OI should really have a two-tiered system, some people who are restricted like Drace should at least be allowed to post to any thread albeit, with moderator's approving the posts, that way you can filter out anything you deem as "reactionary" (not that I agree he deserves to be restricted) but yeah.

How comes you can't invite people to groups? I tried looking for a way to invite Drace to the leftist video project but there's no option to do it.

Communist

23rd January 2010, 16:59

Drace
It seems the only way I can get un restricted now is to undergo a sex change operation.

I can think of another, easier way. We'll unrestrict you if you agree to a ban and IP lock in exchange. But from the looks of it, it appears you've already thought of that option and are actively negotiating the terms.

posting useless shit in this thread

Finally something we can all agree with.

Drace

23rd January 2010, 21:06

You ignored my initial post in which I sincerely wrote on why I did not receive a restriction. One mod responded, and I thank him for that. As of the others, all they could do is make stupid insults on my position.

Fuck off.

23rd January 2010, 21:08

23rd January 2010, 21:15

This is not chit-chat, and stop with the personal attacks.Back on topic, if you are wondering what on topic is read first post.

ComradeMan

23rd January 2010, 22:58

This is not chit-chat, and stop with the personal attacks.Back on topic, if you are wondering what on topic is read first post.

Perhaps a new sub-forum or thread could be created in the OI section to allow people to "vent" a bit and get stuff off their chests etc? If people have been restricted and feel they have been hard done by, as in Drace's case here, it's only natural that they might feel frustration and suffer some psychological/virtual trauma so to speak. See this as a proposal for avoiding the derailment of the restriction thread.

whore

24th January 2010, 00:39

Perhaps a new sub-forum or thread could be created in the OI section to allow people to "vent" a bit and get stuff off their chests etc? If people have been restricted and feel they have been hard done by, as in Drace's case here, it's only natural that they might feel frustration and suffer some psychological/virtual trauma so to speak. See this as a proposal for avoiding the derailment of the restriction thread.
maybe if you feel you've been hard done by you can go to haiti and see whether people there are feeling hard done by because of capitalism.

if you want to vent, do it in the chit chat thread, or just go and have a yell at a cop, politicion or capitalist.

Drace

24th January 2010, 03:43

maybe if you feel you've been hard done by you can go to haiti and see whether people there are feeling hard done by because of capitalism.

How irrelevant. Justifying an unjust restriction only because someone else has it worse?

That's the arguments the right uses to justify the use of sweatshops.

if you want to vent, do it in the chit chat thread, or just go and have a yell at a cop, politicion or capitalist.

I don't want to vent, I want some answers.
What's the point of this restriction? Am I somehow harmful to the forum or is this just a punishment?
I already stated I was wrong and of ill-knowledge on the topic.

I came here and made a statement on my restriction. And now I have a mod who tells me that he wants to ban me instead of helping me out with the issue.

Communist

24th January 2010, 03:47

Drace, I wasn't serious any more than you were about spanking.
I don't want to see you or any member banned.
It's easy to have your words misunderstood and to offend someone though, and that's
the point.

RedAnarchist

24th January 2010, 03:48

How irrelevant. Justifying an unjust restriction only because someone else has it worse?

That's the arguments the right uses to justify the use of sweatshops.

Seriously? You're just going to sit there and claim that being restricted on an Internet forum is the same as being trapped under rubble for days, or losing your entire family in mere seconds, or lying injured in the street waiting for aid to arrive? Those people have it FAR, FAR worse! You've barely even been mildly inconvinienced!

If you want people to take your claims of being unfairly restricted seriously, cut the "woe is me" bullshit and then they'll have to listen to you.

Drace

24th January 2010, 04:39

Seriously? You're just going to sit there and claim that being restricted on an Internet forum is the same as being trapped under rubble for days, or losing your entire family in mere seconds, or lying injured in the street waiting for aid to arrive? Those people have it FAR, FAR worse! You've barely even been mildly inconvinienced!

Of course not, but whats the point of bringing up the Haitian disaster? To make me feel guilty about trying to get some justice on my restriction?

If you want people to take your claims of being unfairly restricted seriously, cut the "woe is me" bullshit and then they'll have to listen to you.

I got bored while waiting for a response, really. Look at the first post I made on this thread.
And please do understand that a certain level of frustration emerges when shit happens.

RedAnarchist

24th January 2010, 04:44

Of course not, but whats the point of bringing up the Haitian disaster? To make me feel guilty about trying to get some justice on my restriction?

Their point was most likely to try and give you some perspective. It's not that big a deal compared to what goes in real life.

I got bored while waiting for a response, really. Look at the first post I made on this thread.
And please do understand that a certain level of frustration emerges when shit happens.

Fair enough.

What was the comment that got you restricted and how do you justify it (if you do)?

Drace

24th January 2010, 05:00

It's not that big a deal compared to what goes in real life.Well yes, of course but its not like we must drop all social order because there is something worse going on somewhere else.

What was the comment that got you restricted and how do you justify it (if you do)? Initially, I posted on this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-date-t113436/index.html) in which I included the word "disgusting" in my remarks of transsexuals. I realize what a total mistake this was after I saw the reactions to it, but I at first didn't think it was a big deal. People think boogers are disgusting and yet it was totally unacceptable for me to think a men surgically removing his penis and adding the female genitalia isn't?

I had no intention of calling transsexuals as people as disgusting or advocating any repression of them.
I also stated that I did not have much knowledge on it. However, since I suppose I was taking a bit of a different stance than the others, I was seen as a complete trans-phobic reactionary. I told the others that I had no problems with homosexuality to get them understand my open-minded view of this.

I had simply taken, and lightly might I add, the stance that a sex change operation was not necessary for transsexuals. I also asked for sources and info suggesting otherwise.
...then I see a thread in the members forum that asked for my restriction for trans-phobia :confused:

Even if I had a fascist stance on this, but I admitted I was wrong and changed my views, would I deserve a pro-longed restriction? For what? It seems like a "time out" punishment you'd give to a 4 year old.

RedAnarchist

24th January 2010, 05:14

Initially, I posted on this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-date-t113436/index.html) in which I included the word "disgusting" in my remarks of transsexuals. I realize what a total mistake this was after I saw the reactions to it, but I at first didn't think it was a big deal. People think boogers are disgusting and yet it was totally unacceptable for me to think a men surgically removing his penis and adding the female genitalia isn't?

I think there's a big, big difference between mucus from someone's nose and a major, potentially fatal and very expensive operation that a transsexual often had to wait years for in order to have a body that fits what they consider themselves to be (Imagine if you considered yourself the opposite biological sex to what you are).

I had no intention of calling transsexuals as people as disgusting or advocating any repression of them.

Then you see the problem, right? You say that you had no intention of insulting them, yet your comment that something they go through to correct their transsexuality is disgusting does insult them. You're basically saying that you don't mind them as long as they keep quiet and don't bother the normal people.

I also stated that I did not have much knowledge on it. However, since I suppose I was taking a bit of a different stance than the others, I was seen as a complete trans-phobic reactionary. I told the others that I had no problems with homosexuality to get them understand my open-minded view of this.

Well, saying that your only source of information on it was from South Park hardly helped you. As for the homosexuality comments, homosexuality is about sexual attraction - transsexuality is about gender identity. There are gay transphobes and straight trans allies.

Actually, it isn't - some transsexuals do not wish to transition. However, the majority do and for them, it is necessary.

[quote]...then I see a thread in the members forum that asked for my restriction for trans-phobia :confused:

I'm assuming you feel that you weren't given enough time before that thread was started?

Drace

24th January 2010, 05:30

Then you see the problem, right? You say that you had no intention of insulting them, yet your comment that something they go through to correct their transsexuality is disgusting does insult them. You're basically saying that you don't mind them as long as they keep quiet and don't bother the normal people.

Oh no, I realized the word was a mistake and not on par with what I meant.

Well, saying that your only source of information on it was from South Park hardly helped you.

That was a bit of a joke. I have not read anything Reason and logic and empirical evidence alone can be used for arguing. Though, even this is limited since I have never been in a position to be understanding of their situation for I have never really known a transsexual. I never read a book, an article or anything of the sort to be very clued on a scientific basis. And thus, I said I'd be interested if someone could point me to a source of such information.

As for the homosexuality comments, homosexuality is about sexual attraction - transsexuality is about gender identity. There are gay transphobes and straight trans allies.

However, I would think 99% of the time, a person being hateful of homosexuals would be hateful of transsexuals on the ignorant basis that they are "not normal". And by stating that I had no problem with homosexuality, I don't see how I could be qualified for having a phobia against transsexuals.

Actually, it isn't - some transsexuals do not wish to transition. However, the majority do and for them, it is necessary.

How had people dealt with the issue before the introduction of such an operation? The historical aspect of this seems interesting.

I'm assuming you feel that you weren't given enough time before that thread was started?

Enough time for what?

RedAnarchist

24th January 2010, 05:41

Oh no, I realized the word was a mistake and not on par with what I meant.

Why did you think it was acceptable to use the word to describe them in the first place?

That was a bit of a joke. I have not read anything Reason and logic and empirical evidence alone can be used for arguing. Though, even this is limited since I have never been in a position to be understanding of their situation for I have never really known a transsexual. I never read a book, an article or anything of the sort to be very clued on a scientific basis. And thus, I said I'd be interested if someone could point me to a source of such information.

I think two fairly informative sites/communities for TS/TG people are as follows -

http://www.susans.org/index.html
http://www.lauras-playground.com/

However, I would think 99% of the time, a person being hateful of homosexuals would be hateful of transsexuals on the ignorant basis that they are "not normal". And by stating that I had no problem with homosexuality, I don't see how I could be qualified for having a phobia against transsexuals.

How can you not see? You say that most of the time an homophobe is also a transphobe and vice versa, so it is possible to be transphobic without being homophobic and vice versa.

How had people dealt with the issue before the introduction of such an operation? The historical aspect of this seems interesting.

I don't know much about historical transsexuals. They probably kept it well hidden.

Enough time for what?

To defend or retract what you said.

Drace

24th January 2010, 05:52

Why did you think it was acceptable to use the word to describe them in the first place?

I said that already. What I meant was different from the reaction I got.

How can you not see? You say that most of the time an homophobe is also a transphobe and vice versa, so it is possible to be transphobic without being homophobic and vice versa.

Though unlikely? Clearly my view of transsexuals isn't backed by hate and unintellectual slander?

To defend or retract what you said.

I somewhat tried to during the debate and me saying that I was ignorant of the topic. Though after I saw that things were only getting worse for me, I decided to just get out the topic, but then I couldn't ignore it anymore when I saw the thread wanting to get me restricted. In that thread I did try to defend myself.

And whatever my previous posts suggest, I don't think the restriction is to be justified unless I was to have those reactionary viewpoints now.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I still fight for the working class and its struggles against capitalism, racism, imperialism, inequality and such phobias.

ComradeMan

24th January 2010, 11:27

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss my restriction with me and also posted an Afghanistan question in the form of an apology too.

I was restricted for my "soft liberal attitude on Afghanistan and the UN" and branded a reactionary. No one has got back to me about this with any constructive dialogue.

Havet

24th January 2010, 11:36

24th January 2010, 13:43

Don't worry - nobody has got back to me about my restriction since a year ago.

Your case was discussed way too many times...

CM, no your stance in this forum will certainly not lead to your unrestriction, and the fact that you make an apology short after your restriction makes lot of people suspicious and dont believe you changed.You can come back in few months with your "apology" and we will see then, up until then, stop posting again and again and again about your case, we got it.

ComradeMan

24th January 2010, 13:52

Your case was discussed way too many times...

CM, no your stance in this forum will certainly not lead to your unrestriction, and the fact that you make an apology short after your restriction makes lot of people suspicious and dont believe you changed.You can come back in few months with your "apology" and we will see then, up until then, stop posting again and again and again about your case, we got it.

I am not, every time I mention my restriction in the restriction thread I am accused of going on and on about it.... :confused: Re the "apology", did you read it? I asked many questions and made honest statements and no one has bothered to answer yet. Anyway, I think Drace has also raised an issue here. I assume good faith but saying "we got it," and not actually replying or entering into dialogue with a person leaves them in limbo. People are not mindreaders, how do I, Drace or anyone else know that "you got it"?:D

PS What do you mean by "stance"? Stance on what?

24th January 2010, 14:07

I am not, every time I mention my restriction in the restriction thread I am accused of going on and on about it.... :confused: Re the "apology", did you read it? I asked many questions and made honest statements and no one has bothered to answer yet. Anyway, I think Drace has also raised an issue here. I assume good faith but saying "we got it," and not actually replying or entering into dialogue with a person leaves them in limbo. People are not mindreaders, how do I, Drace or anyone else know that "you got it"?:D

No i havent read your "apology" nor i feel the need to read it, because i dont believe it anw. We got it that you want unrestricted, if you are not a mindreader, i dont care really, but it dont takes much brain to understand that. What i said 1000000 times and you in particular was also warned, and im wondering myself why im not hitting you again with a warning point to be quiet, is that this thread is to raise your objection to your unrestriction and thats it, not to whine day after day, and not post whatever shit is getting in your mind. Im not having a conversation with you right now, i dont expect an answer back, so dont reply for one more time because it will be the last time im leaving it go without a warning. If you cant follow the rules of the forum, there is nothing holding you in here. I am not coming in here to be the "cheka" but fuck, it gets really annoying to read every day shit in this thread and when you want something to found in here you have to pass over 100 stupid and same posts. So this is last warning to you, and everyone else, and especially Drace who you are the new person in here, we dont need 100 more posts to understand that you think we were wrong on your case, sadly or not, for the next couple of months there are really small chances either of you getting unrestricted, so get that in mind, and stop posting the same things over and over again.

PS What do you mean by "stance"? Stance on what?

Mehh forget it, wrong translation, treating of forum would explain it.

Havet

24th January 2010, 21:20

Your case was discussed way too many times..

Why was I not informed about the decision taken those "too many times"?

Drace

24th January 2010, 21:53

RedAnarchist, thanks for the cooperation so far, and that alone seperates you from many of the mods here. But can you continue so we get to the bottom of this?

25th January 2010, 12:22

Why was I not informed about the decision taken those "too many times"?

The decision is quite obvious, so there was no need to inform you.

Yazman

25th January 2010, 13:11

The decision is quite obvious, so there was no need to inform you.

I disagree. When you're making a decision that affects somebody's account, they should always be informed.

Havet

25th January 2010, 13:49

The decision is quite obvious, so there was no need to inform you.

So why aren't all the other mutualists, individualist anarchists, market anarchists/agorists, and left-libertarians restricted as well, if its THAT obvious?

Drace

25th January 2010, 21:31

The decision is quite obvious, so there was no need to inform you. No, the Jews didn't have to be told why they were inferior because it was already decided by Hitler and Goebbels. Claiming to be anti-fascist purging leftists like a Nazi :tt2:

What logic.

RedAnarchist

28th January 2010, 13:48

I said that already. What I meant was different from the reaction I got.

So why do you think they restricted you based on what you said?

Though unlikely? Clearly my view of transsexuals isn't backed by hate and unintellectual slander?

What is your view of transsexuals based on?

I somewhat tried to during the debate and me saying that I was ignorant of the topic. Though after I saw that things were only getting worse for me, I decided to just get out the topic, but then I couldn't ignore it anymore when I saw the thread wanting to get me restricted. In that thread I did try to defend myself.

How well do you think you defended yourself in the thread?

And whatever my previous posts suggest, I don't think the restriction is to be justified unless I was to have those reactionary viewpoints now.

If you don't hold those views anymore, then you would be eligible for unrestriction. I think you have to wait for three months after being restricted before you can ask to be unrestricted, though.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I still fight for the working class and its struggles against capitalism, racism, imperialism, inequality and such phobias.

Noone is denying that. You could be all that and still have a reactionary viewpoint or two, although you say that you aren't a transphobe.

Sasha

28th January 2010, 13:51

RedAnarchist

28th January 2010, 14:19

No, the Jews didn't have to be told why they were inferior because it was already decided by Hitler and Goebbels. Claiming to be anti-fascist purging leftists like a Nazi :tt2:

What logic.

I'm sure the 6 million plus Jews who were murdered would love to know that you equated their suffering to being restricted without warning on an Internet forum.

Drace

28th January 2010, 21:25

Well I would have to admit that I can't completely defend my comments. I must even admit I held racist views before. While I do understand the stupidity and illogical nature of racism and homophobia, I still suffer slightly from racist instincts.

As good leftists though, who emphasize the material conditions, historical forces, and determinism and their role, you should be understanding of my condition. Given that I'm still quite young and never saw any other race than mine, nor any homosexuals for that matter in the first 8 years of my life, some sympathy must be given.

Though I am working in a progressive path and trying to be understandable. Simple education rather than a restriction for "transphobia" would be much more appropriate.

I'm sure the 6 million plus Jews who were murdered would love to know that you equated their suffering to being restricted without warning on an Internet forum.

I did not equate it. But the same logic applies behind more scenarios, even if one is much more severe than the other.
As the victims we are not told why we are victims?

RedAnarchist

28th January 2010, 21:53

Well I would have to admit that I can't completely defend my comments. I must even admit I held racist views before. While I do understand the stupidity and illogical nature of racism and homophobia, I still suffer slightly from racist instincts.

But you weren't restricted for racism or homophobia.

As good leftists though, who emphasize the material conditions, historical forces, and determinism and their role, you should be understanding of my condition. Given that I'm still quite young and never saw any other race than mine, nor any homosexuals for that matter in the first 8 years of my life, some sympathy must be given.

I think you're overemphasising your lack of early exposure to ethnic minorities and homosexuals there. There's probably millions, if not billions of people who didn't know anyone from an ethnic minority or anyone who was gay when they were growing up and aren't racist and/or homophobic. I didn't know any gay people when I was a kid, but I was never seriously homophobic.

Though I am working in a progressive path and trying to be understandable. Simple education rather than a restriction for "transphobia" would be much more appropriate.

Then why not contribute to OI and OI Learning rather than whine about your restriction? Then after three months has passed since you were restricted you can be considered for unrestriction.

I did not equate it. But the same logic applies behind more scenarios, even if one is much more severe than the other.

Well, the Holocaust is just slightly more severe than being restricted on a forum, you know.

As the victims we are not told why we are victims?

What exactly are you a victim of? Have you been physically, mentally or psychologically harmed by being restricted? Have your human rights been denied? Are you being discriminated against for having a certain skin colour, being a certain sex, being from a certain country etc? Are you being exploited or abused? Your strange e-martyrdom is confusing.

Drace

28th January 2010, 22:01

But you weren't restricted for racism or homophobia.Or transphobia...

Do you deny that material conditions have no affect on social behavior? I am glad you never were a homophobe or a racist. Your mere example of not being a racist in a overly racist world does nothing but to create an isolated example. But what then do you think is the cause of racism?

How else should it be stopped then to change the material conditions which breed racism and the like?
Neither was I ever seriously homophobic nor racist. The only group that are, are the white supremacists.

Are you just trying to bash me? Anything I say seems, and as sincere I am, everything bounces back as some sort of insult.

The question ultimately comes to, does a leftist deserve to be restricted for expressing slightly transphobic views, of which he repented and is nothing more than a victim of the material forces?
Surely if the purpose of this restriction is simply a punishment, then surely you must see how ridiculous it is.
The only other conclusion I can draw is that I am a threat to the forum, which is equally ridiculous.

Then why not contribute to OI and OI Learning rather than whine about your restriction? Then after three months has passed since you were restricted you can be considered for unrestriction.Why a restriction int he first place?

What exactly are you a victim of? Have you been physically, mentally or psychologically harmed by being restricted? Have your human rights been denied? Are you being discriminated against for having a certain skin colour, being a certain sex, being from a certain country etc? Are you being exploited or abused? Your strange e-martyrdom is confusing.I am not trying to make this anything more than what it is -- an unfair restriction. Your the one who keeps accusing me of whining about this and comparing my situation to something completely disastrous, none of which is supported by anything I said. I come here simply to state my case.

If whatever I say can't get me out of this, and it seems that why, then later!
Though it shouldn't have taken paragraphs and paragraphs of text just so I get a mod that finally tells me I have to wait 3 months...Which is rather an awful lot of time. Already I been restricted from posting on many topics I wanted to and being able to do some other activities on the site.

Che a chara

14th February 2010, 20:37

can i plead for leniency :blushing: on my restriction which i though was a tad unfair ?

whore

15th February 2010, 12:08

can i plead for leniency :blushing: on my restriction which i though was a tad unfair ?
who are you and what did you do?

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 14:33

who are you and what did you do?

i believe that my 'crime' was to say that abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive. i have stated that abortion is the right of the mother in many instances. does that make me a right-wing bigot or something ? it's bloody ludicrous.

Sasha

15th February 2010, 16:10

i believe that my 'crime' was to say that abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive. i have stated that abortion is the right of the mother in many instances. does that make me a right-wing bigot or something ? it's bloody ludicrous.

board FAQ:

The only acceptable position on abortion on the forum is support for unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy throughout the entire world. The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman, and every woman has a right to choose. Any member who disagrees with this position and calls for any kind of barrier to access or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism.

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 16:37

board FAQ:

cheers for getting back to me.

but surely that works both ways, what if the father wants to keep the baby, and the mother goes against his wishes, is that not sexism by revleft's logic? not that i'm saying that the father should over-rule the mother as it's her body, but i'm just making an example. what i see here is hypocrisy as revleft seem to be promoting individualism also, plus it's not democratic. :)

but how on earth how does it deem me to be 'sexist', as it also effects the father that an abortion shouldn't be used as contraception ??? :)

#FF0000

15th February 2010, 16:38

cheers for getting back to me.

but surely that works both ways, what if the father wants to keep the baby, and the mother goes against his wishes, is that not sexism by revleft's logic? not that i'm saying that the father should over-rule the mother as it's her body, but i'm just making an example. what i see here is hypocrisy as revleft seem to be promoting individualism also, plus it's not democratic. :)

but how on earth how does it deem me to be 'sexist', as it also effects the father that an abortion shouldn't be used as contraception ??? :)

It's the mother's body, so it is ultimately up to her. The father isn't the one that has to carry and then birth that baby.

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 16:40

It's the mother's body, so it is ultimately up to her. The father isn't the one that has to carry and then birth that baby.

yes i understand that, but how am i sexist when my opinion can also adversely affect the father ?

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 16:51

ComradeMan

15th February 2010, 20:48

I think the board FAQ is badly worded to be honest and does not necessarily agree with medical expertise either, hell, no doctor- not even an abortion doctor would say that an abortion at 35 weeks were a good idea unless there were a serious health threat.

We need to define the terminology of "terms"- do we mean post-viability? Do we mean when there is or isn't a medical risk?

I think all doctors would agree that using abortion repeatedly as a form of contraception is a major health risk for women too. Women who undergo one or more induced abortions carry a significantly increased risk of delivering prematurely in the future. Premature delivery is associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy, as well as other complications of prematurity (brain, respiratory, bowel, and eye problems). A disputed link to breast cancer has also been suggested.

I don't want to get involved in this one, but some serious medical-science is called for here too.

Pauli E, Haller U, Zimmermann R (2005). "[Morbidity of dilatation and evacuation in the second trimester: an analysis]" (in German). Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 45 (2): 107–115. doi (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1159/000083785 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1159%2F000083785). PMID (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 15818053 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15818053).

Bartley J, Tong S, Everington D, Baird DT (2000). "Parity is a major determinant of success rate in medical abortion: a retrospective analysis of 3161 consecutive cases of early medical abortion treated with reduced doses of mifepristone and vaginal gemeprost". Contraception 62 (6): 297–303. doi (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00187-6 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0010-7824%2800%2900187-6). PMID (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/PubMed_Identifier) 11239616 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11239616).

http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

Re the FAQ

I would reword it

The only acceptable position on abortion on this forum is the support for unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access to abortion within medically/scientifically agreed and proven safety constraints. The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman on the basis thereof, and every woman has a right to choose. Any member who disagrees with this position and calls for barrier to access on the grounds of religious and/or non-medical/scientific facts or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism.

Decolonize The Left

15th February 2010, 22:18

i'm willing to be convinced otherwise here, and if someone can without the "it's the mother's body" line with actual proof or arguments that an abortion is acceptable if used just as a method contraception then i'm ready to listen.

No one, absolutely no one, argues that abortion ought to be used as a contraceptive. A contraceptive is a condom or a pill which limits the possibility of conception. An abortion does not limit the possibility of conception, it ends a pregnancy.

Until you can accept that this is a distorted understanding of the pro-choice argument, you will continue to posit strawmen arguments and be upset when no one explains them to you.

Abortion ought to be completely legal and accessible to all women because giving birth to a child is a woman's choice and all options ought to be available to her when making this decision. End of story.

- August

Che a chara

15th February 2010, 22:54

No one, absolutely no one, argues that abortion ought to be used as a contraceptive. A contraceptive is a condom or a pill which limits the possibility of conception. An abortion does not limit the possibility of conception, it ends a pregnancy.

Until you can accept that this is a distorted understanding of the pro-choice argument, you will continue to posit strawmen arguments and be upset when no one explains them to you.

Abortion ought to be completely legal and accessible to all women because giving birth to a child is a woman's choice and all options ought to be available to her when making this decision. End of story.

- August

how am i supposed to be on the same wavelength with you if all you say is "end of story" ? am i supposed to lie so i can get un-restricted ?

Jazzratt

15th February 2010, 23:14

how am i supposed to be on the same wavelength with you if all you say is "end of story" ? am i supposed to lie so i can get un-restricted ?

Honestly if you're still clinging on to the anti-choice strawman of the "contracpetive abortion" you should probably stay here for a while, at least.

Even if you belive that people actuall will or do use abortion in lieu of contraception, though, I'm still not sure why you oppose it. The end is the same whether a pregnancy is terminated for a reason that you like or for one you don't like. Why does the reason suddenly change the morality of terminating a pregnancy, especially as you describe yourself as pro-choice and therefore don't limit the right to abortion.

It seems recenlty, by the way, that "contracpetive abortion" is the strawman of the hour amongst the pro-life set. I wish they would go back to the much more amusing one of people just having abortions for the hell of it or getting pregnant specifically for abortions. At least those ones are funny and stupid rather than simply fucking stupid.

ComradeMan

15th February 2010, 23:27

DesertShark

16th February 2010, 00:24

To be fair, I have heard of abortion being used in China as a way of selecting a male child owing to China's one child policy. This is a minefield too, for surely it's a form of sexism- it also leads to the evil of unwanted "females" being unregistered and thus creating the phenonemon of "black women", i.e. females who do not officially exist and thus have no rights.
Yea that was/is happening in China and India when access to ultrasound machines were/are available. Perhaps its better then female infanticide?

But that's also an example where abortion isn't being used as a contraceptive; the people want a baby, they just don't want that particular baby.

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 03:00

Honestly if you're still clinging on to the anti-choice strawman of the "contracpetive abortion" you should probably stay here for a while, at least.

Even if you belive that people actuall will or do use abortion in lieu of contraception, though, I'm still not sure why you oppose it. The end is the same whether a pregnancy is terminated for a reason that you like or for one you don't like. Why does the reason suddenly change the morality of terminating a pregnancy, especially as you describe yourself as pro-choice and therefore don't limit the right to abortion.

It seems recenlty, by the way, that "contracpetive abortion" is the strawman of the hour amongst the pro-life set. I wish they would go back to the much more amusing one of people just having abortions for the hell of it or getting pregnant specifically for abortions. At least those ones are funny and stupid rather than simply fucking stupid.

thanks for the reply.

I see a difference between a health risk and no health risk. i see a difference between being able to look after the child properly and securely and not being able to. that's why abortion can/should be necessary.

methods which prohibit pregnancy, like the pill or contraception should be made readily available and free 24/7. but what i can't understand is that these methods which are available aren't used. If it's a case off a one-night drunken stand, would there not be a responsibility of the female to be on the pill ? even if it's not a drunken 'fumble', but 2 consenting, aware adults, surely the emphasis would be on them both of wearing a condom ?

*edit: hmmm, some interesting pro-choice arguments here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-33-t67972/index.html

#FF0000

16th February 2010, 03:41

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion in that situation, QB?

Che a chara

16th February 2010, 03:59

Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion in that situation, QB?

well that's what i'm currently debating (or trying to decide) on.

the link i just provided in my previous post has opened my eyes somewhat.... i need to really understand it if i am to agree with it, ye know?

ComradeMan

16th February 2010, 08:53

Yea that was/is happening in China and India when access to ultrasound machines were/are available. Perhaps its better then female infanticide?

But that's also an example where abortion isn't being used as a contraceptive; the people want a baby, they just don't want that particular baby.

Yeah.. I catch you, but do you also see how problematic it is? And sexist?

I don't have all the answers, I don't think anyone does but it's not an easy subject. My own line is more or less in the "revised" version of the faq.

Jazzratt

16th February 2010, 15:18

I see a difference between a health risk and no health risk. i see a difference between being able to look after the child properly and securely and not being able to. that's why abortion can/should be necessary.

The thing is that the reason people oppose abortions is they either believe it is wrong to end the "life" of a foetus and/or prevent the potential child from being born. The thing is that a child that poses a health risk or one that is to be born to a poor mother is going to be just as terminated as any other. That's why I find it difficult to understand the partially anti-choice position.

methods which prohibit pregnancy, like the pill or contraception should be made readily available and free 24/7. but what i can't understand is that these methods which are available aren't used. If it's a case off a one-night drunken stand, would there not be a responsibility of the female to be on the pill ? even if it's not a drunken 'fumble', but 2 consenting, aware adults, surely the emphasis would be on them both of wearing a condom ?

In a perfect world people will always use contracpetion all the time they don't want to get pregnant. However since people are fallible and world isn't, in fact, perfect then allowances can and should be made for people who forget condoms or don't have their pills on them or whatever. Unprotected sex is risky enough given the array of STIs available, I'm not really sure what the point is of adding preventable pregnancies to the list of potential, miserable consequences.

DesertShark

17th February 2010, 01:50

Yeah.. I catch you, but do you also see how problematic it is? And sexist?

I don't have all the answers, I don't think anyone does but it's not an easy subject. My own line is more or less in the "revised" version of the faq.
I never said it wasn't problematic.

Che a chara

17th February 2010, 05:29

The thing is that the reason people oppose abortions is they either believe it is wrong to end the "life" of a foetus and/or prevent the potential child from being born. The thing is that a child that poses a health risk or one that is to be born to a poor mother is going to be just as terminated as any other. That's why I find it difficult to understand the partially anti-choice position.

In a perfect world people will always use contracpetion all the time they don't want to get pregnant. However since people are fallible and world isn't, in fact, perfect then allowances can and should be made for people who forget condoms or don't have their pills on them or whatever. Unprotected sex is risky enough given the array of STIs available, I'm not really sure what the point is of adding preventable pregnancies to the list of potential, miserable consequences.

what about having me own opinion (and keeping it to meself) but respecting the decision of whatever the female wishes ?

or do i have to be fully 'on board' ?

Sendo

17th February 2010, 06:47

i believe that my 'crime' was to say that abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive. i have stated that abortion is the right of the mother in many instances. does that make me a right-wing bigot or something ? it's bloody ludicrous.

How did you word it? There is nothing wrong with saying that it's better to prevent pregnancy than to have to abort, and that it is troubling that some women with education and money never use safe sex and just rely on abortions when they get pregnant...that attitude is irresponsible and dangerous to the woman's health.

In any case, I assume that's what you meant since abortion isn't a contraceptive; it's a contra-gestation/contra-giving-birth(?).

The bad part is that you say that "abortion is the right of the mother in many instances." The right is there for every instance on principle (no mater how you feel that 6-month abortions, banning them won't do a damn bit of good). Also, saying mother is a bit loaded since unless it's prefaced as biological mother (as in the DNA donor sense) the idea of a "mother" is a social relationship between sentient persons that is not necessarily connected to DNA or to pregnancy.

Jazzratt

17th February 2010, 12:35

what about having me own opinion (and keeping it to meself) but respecting the decision of whatever the female wishes ?

or do i have to be fully 'on board' ?

I don't remember the board policty but personally I don't really give a shit what you think as long as you aren't actively trying to stop someone getting an abortion.

eyedrop

17th February 2010, 13:07

methods which prohibit pregnancy, like the pill or contraception should be made readily available and free 24/7. but what i can't understand is that these methods which are available aren't used. If it's a case off a one-night drunken stand, would there not be a responsibility of the female to be on the pill ? even if it's not a drunken 'fumble', but 2 consenting, aware adults, surely the emphasis would be on them both of wearing a condom ?

Most sexually active women have plenty of pregnancy scares despite doing their best in regards to contraceptives. (I even bought a pregnancy test last week!) Pregnancies happen even if people do their best to avoid it, that's just how it is. Should those people then be punished with an unwanted pregnancy and resulting child?

red cat

17th February 2010, 14:41

Yes. God's will. If you oppose this you'll burn in hellfire forever.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Che a chara

17th February 2010, 15:53

I don't remember the board policty but personally I don't really give a shit what you think as long as you aren't actively trying to stop someone getting an abortion.

hell no i wouldn't try and stop someone from getting an abortion by either by speaking to them directly or indirectly or actively campaign in a protest etc.. it's just a personal opinion in this case

Che a chara

17th February 2010, 16:01

How did you word it? There is nothing wrong with saying that it's better to prevent pregnancy than to have to abort, and that it is troubling that some women with education and money never use safe sex and just rely on abortions when they get pregnant...that attitude is irresponsible and dangerous to the woman's health.

In any case, I assume that's what you meant since abortion isn't a contraceptive; it's a contra-gestation/contra-giving-birth(?).

The bad part is that you say that "abortion is the right of the mother in many instances." The right is there for every instance on principle (no mater how you feel that 6-month abortions, banning them won't do a damn bit of good). Also, saying mother is a bit loaded since unless it's prefaced as biological mother (as in the DNA donor sense) the idea of a "mother" is a social relationship between sentient persons that is not necessarily connected to DNA or to pregnancy.

it may have been the way i worded it, but i think the point is that i would never ever force or think of forcing someone into giving birth no matter what the circumstances are.

Che a chara

17th February 2010, 16:06

Most sexually active women have plenty of pregnancy scares despite doing their best in regards to contraceptives. (I even bought a pregnancy test last week!) Pregnancies happen even if people do their best to avoid it, that's just how it is. Should those people then be punished with an unwanted pregnancy and resulting child?

i get where people are coming from in regards to certain issues here. I have been doing a bit of reading on the subject lately (on here as it goes) ,and i have become more 'sympathetic' to the idea of abortion as opposed to the more liberal thought i had before

i mean in certain questions posed to me and others i am unable to give an answer :blushing: which in itself is a good thing :)

Decolonize The Left

17th February 2010, 23:24

This is not a thread in which to debate or discuss abortion. There are currently several threads on this issue, the closest being the one in OI Learning. Please discuss the issue there and leave this thread for member's appealing restrictions.

Quarterback, your restriction will not be repealed until you change your stance on abortion.

- August

Che a chara

21st February 2010, 15:56

ok folks, i think and hope that the admin/mods can consider revoking my restriction on the basis that I have deliberated long and hard over my position on abortion and have come to the conclusion that it is the woman's right in any situation to abort if she wishes.

I have came across many questions/points/facts that i was unable to answer (especially this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1048571&postcount=8 )

To force someone to have an abortion is just wrong (though i have to point out that i never once advocated or hinted that this was my opinion, because it wasn't). The mental scars and after affects of a woman having a baby that she didn't want could well be reprehensible on both mother and child.

What gives society or an individual or a group the right to dictate the thinking and freedoms of choice in a situation that doesn't affect them in any adverse way ?

whore

22nd February 2010, 10:31

but what about the baby that your saying should be killed? don't you think that this little bundle of joy should have a right to live?

(i'm not serious folks, but you no people think like that.)

Decolonize The Left

24th February 2010, 08:23

but what about the baby that your saying should be killed? don't you think that this little bundle of joy should have a right to live?

(i'm not serious folks, but you no people think like that.)

This is a verbal warning. Two posts above yours I indicated that this thread was not an abortion discussion thread - here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t112017/index.html?t=112017&highlight=abortion)'s the current thread on this topic.

- August

Drace

1st March 2010, 06:07

Has it been 3 months yet?

Decolonize The Left

3rd March 2010, 17:51

Has it been 3 months yet?

Please don't spam this thread with posts like this. You are perfectly capable of looking back into this thread and finding when you last had a discussion on your restriction. In fact, it was two pages ago - about a month.

So no, it hasn't been three months.

- August

Dermezel

2nd April 2010, 21:08

I beat Khad (a moderator with a bad rep) pretty bad in a debate. And I mean really bad, I think I may have even embarrassed him because he got so emotional at the end:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/china-brain-draining-t131393/index.html?t=131393

Even in terms of just quantity of evidence I was ahead, which explains why he went so crazy.

Uh yeah, so, basically, he's been following me around on every thread I post. Even threads I respond to, like Avatar, he brings it up from like two pages and comments. He has even been accused of abusing his power in these threads. He posted He closed two of my threads on the strategy forums- the only forum where he is a moderator- for some really lame reasons.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/study-4gw-t130689/index.html

And just to give you evidence of how either lacking in objectivity, or how bad he seems to be at making arguments he is check out the first thread above. In it he notes "Mao never considered his theories 4GW".

Like okay, 4GW hadn't even been invented yet. So yeah, Mao didn't call his ideas 4GW. But that's a ridiculous objection.

I don't know, is it even a good idea to have someone like that in charge of the strategy forum? Someone who is kind of against new technologies? And like, doesn't accept modern military science or theories? How is that going to help the left?

Dermezel

2nd April 2010, 21:18

I'm going to show you exactly what I mean by Khad's arguing the 4GW issue.

Dermezel

2nd April 2010, 22:04

I mean just look at this argument by Khad:

Mao never considered his warfare 4th generationhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/study-4gw-t130689/index.html

Now consider this:

The concept was first described by the authors William S. Lind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Lind), Colonel Keith Nightengale (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Nightengale&action=edit&redlink=1) (US Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army)), Captain John F. Schmitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Schmitt&action=edit&redlink=1) (USMC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USMC)), Colonel Joseph W. Sutton (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_W._Sutton&action=edit&redlink=1) (US Army), and Lieutenant Colonel Gary I. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_I._Wilson&action=edit&redlink=1) (USMCR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USMCR)) in a 1989 Marine Corps Gazette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Gazette) article entitled “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4GW

Okay this guy is in charge of the strategy forum? Someone who can't realize a basic fact like this when arguing?

I mean okay Khad is right, but that's because the term hadn't even been invented yet. He starts his argument that way. I don't know, maybe he's being super-strategic and trying to disarm me by having me underestimate him, but I doubt it.

Decolonize The Left

2nd April 2010, 22:59

Dermezel, your restriction is currently being discussed in the mod forum. Please understand that this is in progress and refrain from posting in this thread. If you would like an update at a later point you may PM any mod or admin.

- August

Left-Reasoning

2nd April 2010, 23:39

Greetings! It is I, Left-Reasoning.

I have been wrongly restricted.

Was my opposition to capitalism too strong? My revolutionary fervor too zealous? My hatred of hierarchy in all its forms too extreme?

I ask for justice. That is the alpha and omega of my system just as it was for Proudhon. And justice is clear.

My restriction is to be repealed, absolved and expunged immediately and that it be done so without delay, hesitation or dawdling.

Too radical you say? It is indeed radical. Just as the working man should be liberated from the capitalists at once, so too with the stroke of the pen does justice demand, order and necessitate my freedom.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif

Havet

2nd April 2010, 23:49

Left-Reasoning

3rd April 2010, 00:10

Here's the culprit:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1710233&postcount=270

I hold no hostility to Comrade Miles, it was most likely but a misunderstanding, but to say that I am a capitalist is an absurdity.

I ask which post made him think such a thing of me so that I may clarify.

Havet

3rd April 2010, 00:14

I hold no hostility to Comrade Miles, it was most likely but a misunderstanding, but to say that I am a capitalist is an absurdity.

I ask which post made him think such a thing of me so that I may clarify.

Probably your defense of Marginal Utility. It is a viewed as a part of the Austrian School of Economics, and most people at revleft absolutely hate that school.

SouthernBelle82

3rd April 2010, 23:28

I've been trying to get off restriction forever now. I've posted so much in the O.I. I think I've proven myself by now.

khad

3rd April 2010, 23:55

I've been trying to get off restriction forever now. I've posted so much in the O.I. I think I've proven myself by now.
Your request for unrestriction was in process when the CC went down, and it seems to have gotten lost in the bureaucratic shakeup. Rest assured that we are working on it now.

Jazzratt

4th April 2010, 01:00

I've been trying to get off restriction forever now. I've posted so much in the O.I. I think I've proven myself by now.

Discussion has finally started. Sorry about the delay and all that. Should take a week or so, looks hopeful :)

SouthernBelle82

4th April 2010, 03:22

Discussion has finally started. Sorry about the delay and all that. Should take a week or so, looks hopeful :)

Oh no problem. A mod messaged me sometime ago, not long like a week or something, and said that the site was going through some maintenance stuff so a lot going on with that which is totally understandable. Just sometimes gets frustrating and bored lol. Glad to hear! Will someone send me an PM with whatever the results are? I apologize if I've been a nag. I'm getting it down pat with my 27 yr old self lol.

SouthernBelle82

4th April 2010, 03:24

Your request for unrestriction was in process when the CC went down, and it seems to have gotten lost in the bureaucratic shakeup. Rest assured that we are working on it now.

Oh it's cool. :) As I said in my other post I apologize if I've nagged or anything lol. It just gets boring sometimes just being able to go to OI lol. :crying:

GPDP

12th April 2010, 09:00

Probably your defense of Marginal Utility. It is a viewed as a part of the Austrian School of Economics, and most people at revleft absolutely hate that school.

I don't agree with marginal utility (as far as I can elaborate, anyway; I am pretty noobish when it comes to economics), but if that were the reason, I'd call it ridiculous. Yes, most socialists subscribe to the LTV, but the LTV is not a necessary requirement for being a socialist. Some Marxists will say otherwise, claiming that without the LTV, we lose a powerful weapon for critiquing the capitalist system, but I disagree. It is but one weapon, not our sole savior.

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel of Parecon fame are leftist critics of the LTV, for instance. I dunno if they follow marginal utility instead or what, but I know they certainly do not subscribe to the LTV. Would they be restricted were they to post here?

Havet

12th April 2010, 13:26

I don't agree with marginal utility (as far as I can elaborate, anyway; I am pretty noobish when it comes to economics), but if that were the reason, I'd call it ridiculous. Yes, most socialists subscribe to the LTV, but the LTV is not a necessary requirement for being a socialist. Some Marxists will say otherwise, claiming that without the LTV, we lose a powerful weapon for critiquing the capitalist system, but I disagree. It is but one weapon, not our sole savior.

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel of Parecon fame are leftist critics of the LTV, for instance. I dunno if they follow marginal utility instead or what, but I know they certainly do not subscribe to the LTV. Would they be restricted were they to post here?

They would probably be restricted too.

IcarusAngel

12th April 2010, 20:49

lol. Do you know who Robin Hahnel is? Hahnel claims capitalism works effectively (i.e., effectively enough to not collapse) because of social democracy. That is to say capitalism works because of government regulations and by allowing people to democratically vote to transfer wealth. It figures he would believe in this since he advocates PARTICIPATORY ECONOMICS.

Instead of the amount of coercion that is allowed in the current system, though (namely the coercion of the capitalists), he advocates COMPLETE participatory economics. Granted, this is different from communism, as it's not based purely on "need," but it is nonetheless SIMILAR to communism.

Albert is basically Noam Chomsky, without the intellectual rigor (not a put down, that's a high bar as Chomsky's work is rigorous).

Left-Reasoning is not within this framework but within the Austrian framework, which is pretty much everything the left is against - anti-science, anti-logic, anti-social science.

Decolonize The Left

14th April 2010, 19:06

*sigh*

Once again, this thread is for appeals about restrictions, not debate. Please keep this thread clean. Thanks.

- August

SouthernBelle82

16th April 2010, 05:18

*sigh*

Once again, this thread is for appeals about restrictions, not debate. Please keep this thread clean. Thanks.

- August

How is my thing going? Just curious. :)

Jazzratt

16th April 2010, 13:13

How is my thing going? Just curious. :)

Poll closes tomorrow. Unless you make an overwhelming reactionary post between now and then it looks like you'll be out.

SouthernBelle82

16th April 2010, 19:54

Poll closes tomorrow. Unless you make an overwhelming reactionary post between now and then it looks like you'll be out.

What do you mean by out? Out as in unrestricted?

Decolonize The Left

16th April 2010, 20:55

What do you mean by out? Out as in unrestricted?

Yes, that's what he means.

- August

Left-Reasoning

17th April 2010, 01:23

I would like to hear the charges that have been brought against me.

Also, someone recently gave me a large -rep but I have no idea who it was.

Drace

17th April 2010, 06:45

3 months has passed! :)

#FF0000

17th April 2010, 18:52

I would like to hear the charges that have been brought against me.

Also, someone recently gave me a large -rep but I have no idea who it was.

Agorism is considered an OI.

Drace

18th April 2010, 04:43

So, what do I need to do now for a appeal of the restriction?

Conquer or Die

18th April 2010, 06:16

1. I would like to change my name to Conquer or Die.

2. I appeal my restriction based on these grounds:

A.) The USA should not be engaged in wars of aggression, period. Humanitarian intervention is unfortunately a codeword for sustainable aggression on the part of private and public imperialists. I do not support it or USA military interventionism that is clearly illegal, cowardly, and detrimental to the world as whole.

B.) I apologize for my baffling bout of paranoia when I thought this website was under the influence of an Anarcho-Trotskyist cyber-cult. I do not like Anarchists or Trotskyists but this is no reason for me to engage in frivolous and distracting behavior. This irrationality won't occur again.

C.) I don't hold any supremacist beliefs.

D.) Comments I've made in OI are simply me (badly) trying to test the waters of what other people may think about various issues. They do not reflect my overall view of how I feel about proletarian revolution. I subscribe to international proletarian revolution, I view this as liberation, I believe this can or should occur in a revolution, violent if necessary.

E.) On proletarian revolution I think it should be fair to make a claim that workers in industrialized countries may not be exploited and may in fact be exploiters. Since this is a debatable point I do not believe it is grounds for me to be restricted.

F.) Ultimately the reason why I joined this site was to communicate with others about history topics in relation to communism. If I were unrestricted it would allow me unfettered ability to communicate with people on the history sub-forum about topics that I would like to discuss. If I couldn't be unrestricted, the ability to post and respond on the history forum would be enough for me.

Thank you

Left-Reasoning

19th April 2010, 03:57

Agorism is considered an OI.

Ah, well I have my answer then. Thank you.

Bud Struggle

19th April 2010, 20:15

What do you mean by out? Out as in unrestricted?

You guys ended up BANNING her? :crying:

#FF0000

19th April 2010, 20:55

You guys ended up BANNING her? :crying:

The whole "Yeah I'm gonna be a Fed" thing is something we can't really allow on the forum. It's a blatant security risk.

Bud Struggle

19th April 2010, 21:09

The whole "Yeah I'm gonna be a Fed" thing is something we can't really allow on the forum. It's a blatant security risk.

"Fed" as in federal agent?

LeftSideDown

19th April 2010, 21:21

"Fed" as in federal agent?

Yeah she had it in a post. I made some snide remark about it and I got a warning or something.

Drace

19th April 2010, 21:55

Then after three months has passed since you were restricted you can be considered for unrestriction.

Hmm.

#FF0000

19th April 2010, 22:42

Hmm.

What were you restricted for, boyo?

Communist

19th April 2010, 22:53

What were you restricted for

Drace (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17099) was restricted for transphobia, see this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/restrict-drace-transphobia-t126129/index.html) LS.

.

#FF0000

19th April 2010, 23:54

Drace (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17099) was restricted for transphobia, see this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/restrict-drace-transphobia-t126129/index.html) LS.

.

I see.

So, then, Drace, why should we unrestrict you? (This means make a case)

Drace

20th April 2010, 00:34

Simply put, because I'm not a transphobe and this restriction is silly.

#FF0000

20th April 2010, 00:48

Because I'm not a transphobe and I stated that a million times even before I got restricted. But whatever, I want to forget about that and move on.

Well, you said some pretty transphobic stuff. Equating transexuality to necrophilia, for example (saying "I think necrophilia's gross too, I'm a necrophobe!).

I also think such a restriction is very childish and pointless anyway.

Is transphobia contagious? How would I at all be a disturbance to the forum if unrestricted? Was I ever?

The point is to maintain an environment free of the bigotry that people have to face everyday. It's the same reason we ban and restrict racists and sexists.

Drace

20th April 2010, 00:52

Well, you said some pretty transphobic stuff. Equating transexuality to necrophilia, for example (saying "I think necrophilia's gross too, I'm a necrophobe!).

That's out of context and I was misunderstood. Nonetheless, I don't hold such views now, even if I did before.

The point is to maintain an environment free of the bigotry that people have to face everyday. It's the same reason we ban and restrict racists and sexists.

Make's sense.

#FF0000

20th April 2010, 00:59

Make's sense.

So you understand why we restricted you then, I hope? Even if you didn't intend to sound it, your comments were unnecessarily crass and harsh.

Drace

20th April 2010, 01:01

So you understand why we restricted you then, I hope? Even if you didn't intend to sound it, your comments were unnecessarily crass and harsh.I understand my comments were harsh, but I didn't mean them to such an extent. I also apologized and said a numerous times that I did not mean what I said and that some of my comments were misunderstood. I also appealed countless times.

Although I did think 3 months of a restriction was a bit harsh...

#FF0000

20th April 2010, 01:10

Mhm. I made a thread.

Left-Reasoning

20th April 2010, 01:21

Well, you said some pretty transphobic stuff. Equating transexuality to necrophilia, for example

What's wrong with necrophilia?

Decolonize The Left

20th April 2010, 22:26

What's wrong with necrophilia?

This thread is not for discussion of what's wrong with necrophilia, etc... it's for objections to restrictions. Please keep it clean.

- August

Conquer or Die

30th April 2010, 01:37

previous post edited

Skooma Addict

5th May 2010, 22:01

Is Market Socialism considered an OI?

Bud Struggle

5th May 2010, 22:34

Is Market Socialism considered an OI?

Wasn't the latter day Soviet Union Market Socialist?

Skooma Addict

5th May 2010, 23:38

I am no expert, but I don't believe it was an actual market socialist economy. It was just an economy with some aspects of both (not the same thing). Don't quote me on that though.

Left-Reasoning

6th May 2010, 06:31

Wasn't the latter day Soviet Union Market Socialist?

It certainly wasn't freed market socialism.

Skooma Addict

6th May 2010, 19:03

Seriously though, I would like to know if Market Socialism is an OI.

Ele'ill

6th May 2010, 23:24

Can I get a temporary pass to talk in the temporary Greek thread?

Decolonize The Left

8th May 2010, 00:45

Seriously though, I would like to know if Market Socialism is an OI.

There are several prominent Market Socialists/Anarcho-capitalists/Mutualists who have been restricted in the past. So in short, yes, though it is handled (as most restrictions are) on a case-by-case basis.

- August

Decolonize The Left

8th May 2010, 00:46

Can I get a temporary pass to talk in the temporary Greek thread?

This has been discussed in the past and there is no precedent to allow OIers a temporary pass to a certain thread/forum. I'm not sure if this is due to a technical problem or simply the rule though.

- August

Che a chara

13th May 2010, 02:44

Any possibility that my restriction can be looked at again ?

cheers you beautiful people :D

#FF0000

13th May 2010, 03:29

Any possibility that my restriction can be looked at again ?

cheers you beautiful people :D

Why were you restricted?

Che a chara

21st May 2010, 01:55

Why were you restricted?

Re: abortion.

From #138 on page 7 to #167 on page 9 you can get a drift of my change of position.

Bud Struggle

21st May 2010, 18:45

I think Mari3L is a pretty much on point Communist--any reason to continue to restrict her?

Ele'ill

21st May 2010, 18:56

Thanks Bud, I'd rather identify as an Anarchist.

I've been giving you a relatively hard time lately and responding to a lot of your posts but I think it's because your posts are fairly important if not accurate and I am trying to get the conversation rolling in the thread about whatever YOUR points are. :)

Che a chara

22nd May 2010, 02:09

I think Quarterback is a pretty much on point Communist--any reason to continue to restrict him?

:thumbup1: cheers comrade Bud. :D

#FF0000

25th May 2010, 04:42

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 20:05

Why were you restricted?

I don't remember why. I've always remained critical of my own beliefs so I probably replied to a series of posts with some very critical insight into what needs to change in a various movement. Since I was new to the forums I was automatically labeled as someone that should be in OI.

I have taken a far left environmental or eco-anarchist stance on some issues and I have defended what, at the time, I thought primitivism was. I know a lot of anarchists that are post-civ or primmies and their beliefs are sound. The primitivists being targeted by this forum are not what I generally support though.

#FF0000

25th May 2010, 20:50

So you were restricted for being a dumb primitivist and you are not a dumb primitivist anymore.

Ele'ill

25th May 2010, 21:08

So you were restricted for being a dumb primitivist and you are not a dumb primitivist anymore.

I know what you're going for here but I'm not satisfied with the reasoning. Most of the primmie stuff happened after the restriction so I don't think that is what did it- it might be what kept it for a while.

I was mainly restricted for criticizing a couple of circle jerks that were conversationally going no where. I also heavily criticized tactics. The only reasons these got me restricted was because I was so new to the forum.

#FF0000

25th May 2010, 22:42

Well that's dumb. Making a thread on it.

Left-Reasoning

26th May 2010, 02:01

Free Mari3l!

Left-Reasoning

26th May 2010, 02:12

There are several prominent Market Socialists/Anarcho-capitalists/Mutualists who have been restricted in the past. So in short, yes, though it is handled (as most restrictions are) on a case-by-case basis.

- August

Lumping Market Socialists and Mutualists in with "Anarcho"-Capitalists is like lumping Marxists and Anarchists in with Fascists.

Foldered

26th May 2010, 02:24

Looking into this, I'm not really sure Mari3L is restricted. Seems pretty legit to me.

Ele'ill

26th May 2010, 18:49

After looking around the forums just now I think I would benefit from being able to post elsewhere and I think a lot of people would appreciate my posts.

If unrestricted- my first posts will be in the off topic and chitchat areas- perhaps in the art section.

Where is this thread on my unrestriction?

#FF0000

26th May 2010, 20:04

Mod forum.

Ele'ill

26th May 2010, 21:07

How's it going along?

#FF0000

26th May 2010, 21:10

Can't tell it's a big secret

Wolf Larson

28th May 2010, 21:37

Ok

I'll be happy to continue the ignored debate started in my other (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-royal-mailing-t120363/index6.html?t=120363&page=6) threads (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-down-drain-t118766/index8.html).

You don't debate you simply spew Konkin, Rothbard and Mises mixed with the Rothbardian revisionism of Tucker, Spooner and Stirner. Everything you think in regards to the "free market" is pure hogwash fantasy and is the most extreme version of capitalism which could perhaps exist. You advocate a private state for christ sakes. You advocate a privatized state and you don't even know it.

Ele'ill

28th May 2010, 22:10

I'd like to know how the conversation on my unrestriction is going. If it was decided to keep me restricted I am ok with this but would like to know the reasoning.

Dimentio

28th May 2010, 22:20

I'd like to know how the conversation on my unrestriction is going. If it was decided to keep me restricted I am ok with this but would like to know the reasoning.

Those who are for your continued restriction are viewing your philosophy as thoroughly anti-human. While I do share those sentiments, I think your participation in the main forums will serve to make other users sharpen their claws by using them on you. Hence I am indifferent to your unrestriction, restriction or ban and votes for your unrestriction just to see what would happen.

Ele'ill

28th May 2010, 22:41

Those who are for your continued restriction are viewing your philosophy as thoroughly anti-human. While I do share those sentiments, I think your participation in the main forums will serve to make other users sharpen their claws by using them on you. Hence I am indifferent to your unrestriction, restriction or ban and votes for your unrestriction just to see what would happen.

Edit: I discovered a better come back-

I'll bring some nail clippers with me. I wish I could talk to some of them in a thread to see why they think my views are anti-human. Sounds like there's a lot of anticipation surrounding my unrestriction. :)

With that said I will not be a pain in the ass and I honestly don't think they're going to have much of a reason to hate what I say.