Unfair Restriction V

[Decolonize The Left]

Note to all members who feel the desire to post in this thread:

As of this post, I will be instructing all mods/admins to issue infractions to members who post in this thread for reasons other than outlined in the OP. I will repost it here:

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. So in short, you may post in this thread if your post involves the following:
- Appealing your restriction which has not already been appealed within the past 6 months. This consists of your personal posts which demonstrate a) why your restriction was unjustified and/or b) how you have changed since.
- Requesting clarification for your restriction. This refers to the rules you violated and the evidence against you. You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses, and/or, the responses at hand do not meet the criteria outlined above.

Any other posts made in this thread, including posts made by the member in question upon making the original appeal/clarificatory post (i.e. debate posts), will result in an infraction.

Once again, post in this thread for reasons other than those outlined in the OP as well as those outlined in this post, and you will receive an infraction.

Have a lovely day.

- August

[Jack]

So......what are the chances of me getting unrestricted?

[#FF0000]

Zero cuz bureaucracy

[Decolonize The Left]

So......what are the chances of me getting unrestricted?

What were you restricted for? Why do you think you shouldn't be restricted?

- August

[Jack]

What were you restricted for? Why do you think you shouldn't be restricted?

- August

Well, I made a big post in the last thread but uh.....that's gone now.

I was restricted for transphobia, I'm no longer transphobic.

[Communist]

Well, I made a big post in the last thread but uh.....that's gone now.
I was restricted for transphobia, I'm no longer transphobic. This is the post Jack is referring to, from the recently closed UR thread:



I'm back after a long while away, and would like to be unrestricted. Essentially, this is what happened and why I believe I should be unrestricted.

Originally I was restricted for transphobic arguments I made in a thread (the name of which I don't remember). Since then I've realized the idiocy of my comments and would like to apologize to all I offended while I was there (if they still remember me).

During restriction, my IP (but not my account, and this is a new computer) was banned by a user named Ismail (who I'm sure most of you know). The reason was for creating a double account, which I admit to (and I believe has since been deleted), but the reason stated by Ismail for my creation of that account was to "troll Hoxhaists". This is false, during the creation of the account I was talking to Ismail, who I considered a friendly associate at the time (as we regularly conversed over AIM), and he supported it's creation so I could play the Balance of Power game he hosts in Chit Chat regularly.

With this account I made two posts total, one saying I was a Hoxhaist. This was a way to poke fun at Ismail, as he is a Hoxhaist and I was an anarchist at the time. Days later, Ismail and I got into an argument in which we ceased speaking for several months, and after it I was IP banned from accessing RevLeft.

I believe I should be unrestricted from the primary RevLeft website because I have retracted my original transphobic opinions, and I can contribute to the RevLeft community more so than I can being restricted. Additionally, as per the RevLeft forum rules, multiple accounting is only punishable by a warning point, not a complete IP ban. What has kept me from this website since November of 2009 has been moderator irresponsibility, not any ideological differences that would deter me from visiting.

[Skooma Addict]

Why am I restricted?

[Dean]

Why am I restricted?
Because you support centralized, unequal power structures. Though maybe you should be unrestricted since your arguments to that end are some of the lousiest we've seen here! :lol:

[Havet]

Because you support centralized, unequal power structures.

Why are you unrestricted?

[Jazzratt]

Why are you unrestricted? To be fair, I should be issuing you an automatic infraction. I'm not going to because I'm considering this a "grace period" where people who are used to unfair restrictions threads being full of all this kind of toss. Riddle me this, though, when you read this post:

Note to all members who feel the desire to post in this thread:

As of this post, I will be instructing all mods/admins to issue infractions to members who post in this thread for reasons other than outlined in the OP. I will repost it here:
So in short, you may post in this thread if your post involves the following:
- Appealing your restriction which has not already been appealed within the past 6 months. This consists of your personal posts which demonstrate a) why your restriction was unjustified and/or b) how you have changed since.
- Requesting clarification for your restriction. This refers to the rules you violated and the evidence against you. You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses, and/or, the responses at hand do not meet the criteria outlined above.

Any other posts made in this thread, including posts made by the member in question upon making the original appeal/clarificatory post (i.e. debate posts), will result in an infraction.

Once again, post in this thread for reasons other than those outlined in the OP as well as those outlined in this post, and you will receive an infraction.

Have a lovely day.

- August Did you think that AugustWest had written it for his health?

Right. That's it, next offtopic post, no matter how inocous seeming (even a response to the rhetorical question above) will be immediatly infracted. Any whining will not be tolerated.

[Skooma Addict]

Right. That's it, next offtopic post, no matter how inocous seeming (even a response to the rhetorical question above) will be immediatly infracted. Any whining will not be tolerated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs

[Thug Lessons]

Why have I been restricted without even making any posts? I sent a PM to one of the administrators asking for clarification about whether my views, (third worldism), were considered an OI, and what I can post without danger, and was immediately placed on restricted status.

If third worldism is really considered so noxious that it cannot be tolerated in any form, I would be happy to not post anything at all about it. But I don't see why merely believing first world workers are not exploited under the LTOV is grounds for restriction.

[F9]

Whether you believe it or not, it plays no matter.Your restriction stands until you change your ideas.

[Jack]

Uh, soo......

[#FF0000]

There's a thread~

[Decolonize The Left]

Uh, soo......

Jack, there is a thread currently running in the Moderator's Forum to discuss and vote on your possible unrestriction. You will be notified upon its conclusion.

- August

[Lt. Ferret]

Apparantly I've been restricted due to my views on Yellow Socialism. They said it was proto-fascist. That is incorrect. It is a strain of socialism coined by a French socialist. If at worst, it is in the loosest sense proto-syndicalist. A mod accused it of corporatism but that would take quite a wide, wide, generalized definition of corporatism, and I disagree with that charge. I am a leftist and a socialist.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, no. Type up a blog or post and clarify your ideas for us if you want, but from what I know yellow socialism, I'm surprised you aren't banned.

[Lt. Ferret]

Why have a message board if you are just going to intellectually masturbate each other?

[Widerstand]

Why have a message board if you are just going to intellectually masturbate each other?

Cos it's more fun if there's strangers.

[Widerstand]

Why have a message board if you are just going to intellectually masturbate each other?

Cos it's more fun if there's strangers. Maybe you should do what was asked of you instead of flaming people, if you really care.

oh wow I guess I have an infraction coming now?

[Lt. Ferret]

I don't recall flaming anyone. I also am not quite in the mood to write out a political thesis either. I'll do it eventually, perhaps. I am in a nutshell, more left than a social democrat, but not left enough to be a militant revolutionary marxist.

[Decolonize The Left]

Infractions issued to Lt. Ferret and United Nations for violating the guidelines of the OP. Please refrain from this behavior in the future.

- August

[Left-Reasoning]

I apologize if this is inappropriate, but I'd enjoy it if you'd reconsider the place of Mutualists on RevLeft.

Thanks.

[Decolonize The Left]

I apologize if this is inappropriate, but I'd enjoy it if you'd reconsider the place of Mutualists on RevLeft.

Thanks.

This is not the place for such a request. I suggest you contact a member of the Committed Users group who shares your feelings and ask them to raise it in the Proposal Forum.

This thread is to appeal unfair restrictions and/or ask for clarification.

- August

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I made a big post in the last thread but uh.....that's gone now.

I was restricted for transphobia, I'm no longer transphobic.

Maybe if they do unrestrict you, you should post a thread in the discrimination sub-forum formally apologising to trans people like me for your previous transphobic attitudes, and explain how and why you've changed your mind.

We will forgive if you are genuinely sincere about it. Also your post would contribute positively to further change the minds of a few other people who are still borderline transphobic.

[Lt. Ferret]

.

[Decolonize The Left]

Maybe if they do unrestrict you, you should post a thread in the discrimination sub-forum formally apologising to trans people like me for your previous transphobic attitudes, and explain how and why you've changed your mind.

We will forgive if you are genuinely sincere about it. Also your post would contribute positively to further change the minds of a few other people who are still borderline transphobic.

Good lord this can't be that difficult... stop posting in this thread unless it's about your personal restriction or directly relevant to said restriction. This is a warning as your comment was somewhat constructive.

Infraction issued to Lt. Ferret.

- August

[Lt. Ferret]

:thumbup1:

[Red Poplar]

I feel that I've been unfairly restricted.

I joined the forum only recently, and since new members are allegedly welcome to ask questions in the Learning section, I asked for opinions on abortion, out of curiosity. The admin then said that it would be fair from me to state my opinion as well, so I said that I was pro-life, and that's why I was restricted.

What's the problem here? I know that majority here is pro-choice, I didn't try to convince anyone that I'm right because I respect everyone's opinions, I just stated mine, guaranteed by the freedom of speech and opinion. That's not a reason to label me as a "reactionary", now is it? In fact, reactionaries are those who censor those who disagree with them, because they are insecure. Isn't Leftism supposed to fight such behaviour, instead of implementing it?

In short, I demand that my case is reviewed in a short time, so that I know if this forum is worth my time at all. Thank you.

[F9]

Ok it has been reviewed(by me personally) and the decision is...............
NO you wont be unrestricted unless you change your "ideas"

[Red Poplar]

Fuserg9, you call yourself an "Anarchist"? :laugh:

Why would I change ideas to conform to you and what does abortion have to do with socialism? For the FOURTH time, it was the admin who asked me about my opinion on abortion. It's personal, I didn't judge anyone or start a pro-life propaganda. I just don't like abortions (I've seen aborted fetuses, that's why), and I just said that people should use birth control to reduce the number of abortions. I never stated that it should be banned. What's the problem here?

By the way, I've noticed that you're younger than me. You see, I've spent a lot of time learning about abortion, and I find it inhumane (which is, again, my personal opinion and right). I doubt that you have my range of knowledge about that topic, so ask yourself if you're qualified to tell ME to change ideas. Besides, anarchists don't censor other people, so you're the one who should question his ideas.

[F9]

First of all, you have been issued with a warning point.Read the threads OP, its not that hard to understand them.


Fuserg9, you call yourself an "Anarchist"? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gifIm secretly a fascist but dont tell anyone else.;)


Why would I change ideas to conform to you and what does abortion have to do with socialism? For the FOURTH time, it was the admin who asked me about my opinion on abortion. It's personal, I didn't judge anyone or start a pro-life propaganda. I just don't like abortions (I've seen aborted fetuses, that's why), and I just said that people should use birth control to reduce the number of abortions. I never stated that it should be banned. What's the problem here?Sexism has all to do with socialism, and leftism in general to be more correct, if you dont like it, its your problem and if you cant understand that then the problem is not only ideological...For the second time, i dont give a fuck who asked you, why you said it and under what circumstances, its still unacceptable and against the forum rules.If you have problem with that, then you shouldnt come here at all in the first plase, the FAQ that this forum on registration asks you to read makes it clear that the "ideas" you are carrying would get you restricted, so dont act like you are a victim:w00t::lol:If you cant read, its not our problem again, its yours.


By the way, I've noticed that you're younger than me. You see, I've spent a lot of time learning about abortion, and I find it inhumane (which is, again, my personal opinion and right). I doubt that you have my range of knowledge about that topic, so ask yourself if you're qualified to tell ME to change ideas. Besides, anarchists don't censor other people, so you're the one who should question his ideas. :lol:Fuck off, mr fucking idiot, with so much experience and so smarter than me, cause "I have been to this earh longer than you" shit.And while you are older than me, grow the fuck up, cause despite your age been bigger, your brain has still to grow up more than a pre-teen age:rolleyes:


If you dont like how we mod this forum the way out is not that hard, its just an X symbol on the top right corner.Click on it.Fucking idiot

ps:dont reply in here, you can fill my pm inbox and my profile with your bullshit, but if you reply here, you will be getting more infractions(and if you are wondering what are those, once again read the FAQ)

[Sam_b]

I apologise if my posting in here breaks any rules, but here goes.


Why would I change ideas to conform to you and what does abortion have to do with socialism?

Denying a woman's right to take control of her own body is a fundamentally sexist position which goes against everything we fight for. I should also add this thread isn't for debating in; which you seem to agree with as the rest of your post is full of emotive nonsense and extremely patrionising to one of the best admins here, who I should add has a proven track record.

If you had read the FAQ, which says:


Do you restrict pro-life/anti-choice members? Yes. 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.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=restrictions#faq__

...you wouldn't have needed to post here. Any restricted users should consult the FAQ before posting here. TBH, it's there clear as day and I couldn't care less if you find it 'inhumane'. For a user that says it's his 'right' to hold this opinion, it's pretty funny that you are completely silent on a woman's right to contol their body.

[Red Poplar]

Hahahahaaa, typical! Feeling insecure, so you're attacking?? :lol: And you swearing and calling me names, that's not against the rules, right? Murdering unborn childern during all stages of pregnancy, though, is? I get the idea.

You think I give a fuck about your infraction points? Well, this forum was insane enough to elect you as an administrator, what else is to explain?? I was planning to leave anyway, it's totalitarian, it has nothing to do with socialism. No wonder you are considered extremists, if you restrict free speech on a forum, what would you restrict if you came to power?! :blink:

And no, I'm not a sexist. I respect women to the maximum extent, but I also respect those that nobody protects - unborn babies. 50% of them are female.

So, Fuserg, you can ban me permanently if you see me as a threat, feel safe in your little world called internet forum, and maybe one day when you go out in the real world, you'll find out that reality is much different than it may look like on a forum, you may even learn to behave and talk politely, who knows... :thumbup1:

[#FF0000]

You think I give a fuck about your infraction points? Well, this forum was insane enough to elect you as an administrator, what else is to explain?? I was planning to leave anyway, it's totalitarian, it has nothing to do with socialism. No wonder you are considered extremists, if you restrict free speech on a forum, what would you restrict if you came to power?!

Maybe you're new to the internet but forums tend to have rules

[Red Poplar]

Well done, Fuserg, keep giving me negative reputation! Use your imagination, make up a better explanation than "load of crap"! Justify your "proven track record". :confused: I guess that's an euphemism for a court file. :D

You're wrong if you think that your unjustified infractions are going to change the fact that you're a sociopath. Because, people who insult, attack and use offensive language against others for no reason, are called that way.

Judging by your behaviour up to now, you're most likely influential only in the virtual world, but in reality you're a social outcast, because you obviously lack any emotional intelligence to communicate normally with people who disagree with you. Keep calling this "load of crap", and denying it, but the sad fact is that it's true.

Sam B, do you think I wasn't pro-choice when I was younger? Yes, I was, until I saw an aborted fetus, with blood spilled all over the place and broken little arms and legs, a horrifying scene. You can call that "emotive nonsense", or as your dear colleague says "load of crap" or preferrably "bullshit", but it's reality. I'm not silent on the woman's right to control her body, I'm completely libertarian on that issue, but an aborted fetus doesn't look like a part of a woman's body, especially since it has its own DNA, brain, heart etc.

Yes, "THE BEST MOD", forums have rules, and I doubt they allow offensive language Fuserg uses.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have issued 2 infractions to Red Polar for violating the rules of this thread.

I previously issued an infraction to Lt. Ferret for post #27, yet he clarified that he was not clear on how to delete posts so the infraction will stand for post #29.

Please respect the OP and post according to the rules.

- August

[F9]

OK people lets stop feeding the troll.
Yes Red Polar, we are crazy, we are fascists this board aint socialism(oh god), we dont get out of our houses, we lie, we flame, but first of all WE ARE FETUS KILLERS KILLERS
god will burn us to hell, we will suffer to the flames of hell, god will never forgive us, we will dance with satan at the night etc etc etc Happy?Dont worry, we will keep a place for you too;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Red Poplar, I have split off your last reply into it's own thread so can try to defend the indefensible. Any further off-topic posts by you in this thread will be trashed.

[#FF0000]

From here on out, can Regular users avoid posting in this thread? Mods, admins, and Restricted members only, just to keep it cleaner.

Thanks.

[Che a chara]

Ahem .....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1869316&postcount=30

:)

[#FF0000]

Ahem .....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1869316&postcount=30

:)

Are you saying you don't support the pro-life position now?

[Che a chara]

Are you saying you don't support the pro-life position now?

I never supported it before, I was in two minds about it, and was restricted because of that. I've asked 3 times previously for my restriction to be looked at, and gave my opinion on why. But with no response :( Are the previous Unfair restriction' sections archived ?

[#FF0000]

Don't matter. So you're pro-choice now or whatever?

[Che a chara]

Don't matter. So you're pro-choice now or whatever?

Hells yeah. was never anti-choice anyway. :)

[#FF0000]

We don't want to implement "mind control". We don't allow people who promote sexist positions in the main forum. Sorry.

[Che a chara]

Quarterback, don't let others influence your opinion. Think what you want, what you truly believe. First you said that you were undecided, so don't unconditionally turn to pro-choice just because a few inexperienced moderators say that. It takes a lot of argumentation to turn around an opinion such as that. Listen to both sides, be open-minded and independent. Mind control these guys want to implement is bad.

At first I was just asking questions on the topic, which may have been misconstrued and my position may have been one of naivety but whatever my stance was, I never advocated anti-choice in the first place, and even explained that I would never force my opinion on anyone or protest against abortion (even though i wasn't of that opinion).

Doing more reading on the subject just clarified certain aspects.

Basically, what right does anyone have to force a female to give birth or give a fetus rights above hers that is inside of her ?

Also, I wouldn't change my opinion just because a few mods/admin challenged me on it. Them S.O.B.'s don't frighten me ;)

[Lt. Ferret]

can i have some special privilige where i can talk in threads about the military? i see so much retarded shit on the other boards in regards to the military that could easily be cleared up and its just allowed to sit there and make everyone who reads it a little bit dumber for having done so.

[Red Poplar]

can i have some special privilige where i can talk in threads about the military? i see so much retarded shit on the other boards in regards to the military that could easily be cleared up and its just allowed to sit there and make everyone who reads it a little bit dumber for having done so.

I don't think so, Lieutenant. See, that's exactly why you don't have access to those threads, because you'd actually prove to them that a restricted person could be more knowledgeable than a regular one, or even a mod. :)

Anyway, when am I gonna get unrestricted? I mean, I've stopped posting shit and trolling, I even participate in serious discussions. The OI is too small for me, I want to share my wisdom on the entire forum. :cool:

[#FF0000]

I don't think so, Lieutenant. See, that's exactly why you don't have access to those threads, because you'd actually prove to them that a restricted person could be more knowledgeable than a regular one, or even a mod. :)

Anyway, when am I gonna get unrestricted? I mean, I've stopped posting shit and trolling, I even participate in serious discussions. The OI is too small for me, I want to share my wisdom on the entire forum. :cool:

Still pro-life?

[#FF0000]

can i have some special privilige where i can talk in threads about the military? i see so much retarded shit on the other boards in regards to the military that could easily be cleared up and its just allowed to sit there and make everyone who reads it a little bit dumber for having done so.

Don't think we can do that.

But I'mma have to warn you on the use of the word "Retarded". Not allowed around here.

[Red Poplar]

Still pro-life?

Well, I've seen pro-choice arguments here over time, which seem valid to me, from a scientific point of view. Would it be fair enough if I said that I'm undecided at this point? :)

[Lt. Ferret]

Don't think we can do that.

But I'mma have to warn you on the use of the word "Retarded". Not allowed around here.


forest for the trees.

[#FF0000]

forest for the trees.

I gave you an answer also.

[#FF0000]

I don't think so, Lieutenant. See, that's exactly why you don't have access to those threads, because you'd actually prove to them that a restricted person could be more knowledgeable than a regular one, or even a mod. :)

It's actually cause we dont consider yellow socialists to be socialists.

People who aren't communists can be hella smart. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're restricted.


Anyway, when am I gonna get unrestricted? I mean, I've stopped posting shit and trolling, I even participate in serious discussions. The OI is too small for me, I want to share my wisdom on the entire forum. :cool:

iunno. I'll bring something up in the mod forum I guess.

[Red Poplar]

iunno. I'll bring something up in the mod forum I guess.

Thanks in advance :thumbup1:

[Commie77]

Dear mod Hi i am Commie77, as you can see i have been restricted to the IO forum. I was completely restricted from the whole site for a while due to the fact that i made a sock puppet. I made this puppet because i wanted to discuss in other forums besides the OI forum. Personally the main reason i am here is to see my stance on whether or not i am a socialist or a social democrat. I know that social democrats call for electoriale means of changing things instead of revolutionary means and generally believe only in reforms not tearing down the system. I am just here to figure out what i am and understand why other ideologies are restricted. Whatever you decision is on my ban i am sure it will be wise because well you are mods for a reason right ? :P :) Commie77

[#FF0000]

We restrict folks because we want the main board to be used only for discussing, you know, revolutionary leftist things.

[Commie77]

We restrict folks because we want the main board to be used only for discussing, you know, revolutionary leftist things.

does that mean i will stay restricted ?

[ComradeMan]

We restrict folks because we want the main board to be used only for discussing, you know, revolutionary leftist things.

LOL! Like Third Worldism which carries an automatic restriction and censorship....

[#FF0000]

Which I don't think should happen anyway.

But hey you never knew what you were talking about so why take the effort now.

Have an infraction

Only posts allowed in this thread are from moderators and people asking for their restrictions to be looked at.

[Decolonize The Left]

does that mean i will stay restricted ?

Given that you have stated that you are not a revolutionary leftist, yes, you will stay restricted.

- August

[Red Saxon]

For my Zionism I'm restricted, while others get away with Palestinian and Cuban Nationalism without rebuke?

[#FF0000]

For my Zionism I'm restricted, while others get away with Palestinian and Cuban Nationalism without rebuke?

call us up when Palestinians and Cubans use white phosphorous in residential neighborhoods for the interests of western capital.

[Lt. Ferret]

no cubans just slaughter their politial dissidents and the palestinian governments are basically gangsterism incarnate. nationalisms are fucking stupid. and cuba sucks.

[#FF0000]

okay valid opinions but keep them out of this thread and off this forum imo

[khad]

no cubans just slaughter their politial dissidents and the palestinian governments are basically gangsterism incarnate. nationalisms are fucking stupid. and cuba sucks.
How does it feel to be a gangster for US America in the service of global capital?

[Lt. Ferret]

Feels good, man.:cool:

[Lt. Ferret]

also why is red poplar banned now? is this the thread to ask in?

[#FF0000]

also why is red poplar banned now? is this the thread to ask in?

He actually requested it. It's either in moderator or admin actions.

Now let's keep on topic now. Nobody post unless it directly pertains to your own restriction <3

[Lt. Ferret]

WHY AM I RESTRICTED THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.:cursing:

[Decolonize The Left]

WHY AM I RESTRICTED THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.:cursing:

Congratulations, you earned yourself an infraction.

Read the OP of this thread. Then read where we discussed your restriction. Then read your post above. Then read the OP again.

- August

[theblitz]

Hey, i'd like to appeal my restriction. Apparently when I was 15 or so (2005) I made a couple dumb posts on this forum. Since then i've grown up and changed my mind completely and wouldn't mind being able to post normally. I'm currently studying history at the University of Texas and consider myself to be a marxist.

[#FF0000]

K. I'll get right on it.

[Сталин]

call us up when Palestinians and Cubans use white phosphorous in residential neighborhoods for the interests of western capital.
I love that! That was a great response, you had me laughing! rep to you.

[#FF0000]

Thanks for that. Buuuuuuut like I said, don't post in here unless it has something to do with a restriction! Keep that in mind in the future. :)

[MMIKEYJ]

I dont remember ever posting in one of these unfair restriction threads. Hey its your place and do what you want..

With that being said when I first came here I freely admitted I was libertarian. And I wasn't restricted. Maybe I fell through the cracks but after several days I became restricted.

Anybody thats talked with me over the year or two that Ive been here knows I didn't come here to argue with communists or start a ruckus. I came here to just get a better understanding of communism from communists themselves. I understand that you have a policy or coralling non-commies to the OI section of the board, but It is frustrating when there are some other cool threads such as the Pyramids thread in the history forum where people are talking about non-political discussions and Im prevented from participating.

In the end it means less posts for the board. and less exchange of ideas for the people in the conversation.

Perhaps restricted people could be given access to one or more additional subforums so that when people want to talk about things like Ancient pyramids, or UFOs, or ghosts, hobbies, camping, model trains, retro computing, stamp collecting or a myriad of other non-political subjects they would be able to participate.

Fyi, Im the owner of http://speakfreeforum.com/forum/ and we have several commie users from here that are also members.. Sunfarstar being one off the top of my head. Everybody enjoys talking about stuff... Sure we will disagree on politics and we know this but it doesnt stop us from having pleasant discourse on other subjects or even joke around about politics.

Its especially nice to see alot of the photographic work sunfar does in china and its pretty cool when you can chat with somebody who lives half way around the world IMO.

Just my 2 cents

[MarxSchmarx]

Perhaps restricted people could be given access to one or more additional subforums so that when people want to talk about things like Ancient pyramids, or UFOs, or ghosts, hobbies, camping, model trains, retro computing, stamp collecting or a myriad of other non-political subjects they would be able to participate.


I don't think any of those are non-political (well, maybe retro computing), but you can start threads in OI about this stuff too.

[MMIKEYJ]

I don't think any of those are non-political (well, maybe retro computing), but you can start threads in OI about this stuff too.

You think talking about pyramids, UFOs, ghosts, and model trains is political????

am I reading that right or did you make a typo?

and the threads are already made.. a board member here with full access isnt going to come to OI to start a thread about this stuff. He might not come to OI at all.

[Decolonize The Left]

You think talking about pyramids, UFOs, ghosts, and model trains is political????

am I reading that right or did you make a typo?

and the threads are already made.. a board member here with full access isnt going to come to OI to start a thread about this stuff. He might not come to OI at all.

Despite your wonderful idea which is extremely novel and appreciated by those who administrate this board, the rules of this forum (and this thread) are very clear.

Therefore........... infraction.

Please do not post in this thread unless you are appealing your restriction - if you have any questions, please refer to the OP of this thread, and then if you still are unclear on what's going on, PM an admin or moderator.

- August

[PigmerikanMao]

I would like to appeal to have my restriction repealed. I was restricted last year (maybe a little longer ago) because of my anti-choice stance on abortion, which I have since abandoned. I realized that my anti-woman argument was not only backward, but offensive. The restriction I received was just, but as I no longer espouse those views, and have actually opposed them a few times since, I feel this restriction no longer has merit.

Thank you for considering this appeal
-PMAO

[Module]

I wish to be unrestricted.

I don't go on here very much at all. Partly because there's not much to contribute to in OI. But listen - hey - if I were unrestricted, I would make good contributions to the rest of the site.

I won't be a dirty liberal and pollute your discussions. I am still a bit ambivalent about the far left, but I still share your principles and aims. I am not an opposing ideology, because I don't have any ideology to the contrary, and I won't be a bother and if anything I will enrich your site with my thoughtful contributions, but I still wont come on here that much, I just want the option so that if I have something to say one day I can.
So yeah, please can I be unrestricted? My reasoning in summary is:
- I do not have an ideology in opposition to revolutionary leftism.

Edit: to elaborate on this further, I am interested in the theory and still want to learn more about it. I want to do this within the Learning forum and the Politics forum. Not OI, which isn't the place for someone like me. Also, there aren't enough smart people posting in the Discrimination forum, and that really bothers me.

[Jazzratt]

I would like to appeal to have my restriction repealed. I was restricted last year (maybe a little longer ago) because of my anti-choice stance on abortion, which I have since abandoned. I realized that my anti-woman argument was not only backward, but offensive. The restriction I received was just, but as I no longer espouse those views, and have actually opposed them a few times since, I feel this restriction no longer has merit.

Thank you for considering this appeal
-PMAO


I wish to be unrestricted.

I don't go on here very much at all. Partly because there's not much to contribute to in OI. But listen - hey - if I were unrestricted, I would make good contributions to the rest of the site.

I won't be a dirty liberal and pollute your discussions. I am still a bit ambivalent about the far left, but I still share your principles and aims. I am not an opposing ideology, because I don't have any ideology to the contrary, and I won't be a bother and if anything I will enrich your site with my thoughtful contributions, but I still wont come on here that much, I just want the option so that if I have something to say one day I can.
So yeah, please can I be unrestricted? My reasoning in summary is:
- I do not have an ideology in opposition to revolutionary leftism.

Edit: to elaborate on this further, I am interested in the theory and still want to learn more about it. I want to do this within the Learning forum and the Politics forum. Not OI, which isn't the place for someone like me. Also, there aren't enough smart people posting in the Discrimination forum, and that really bothers me.

Threads have been started on both of you. Sorry PigmerikanMao for taking so long to get round to it.

There's no need to post further in this thread unless you're asked to clarify something. :)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Why was I restricted?

I'm not angry, knew iut was going to happen again at some point, but the single reason why escapes me and I'm curious.

Thank you.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why was I restricted?

I'm not angry, knew iut was going to happen again at some point, but the single reason why escapes me and I'm curious.

Thank you.

You were re-restricted by moderator vote for this little doozy:

My friend got laid off a couple years ago and got a job mowing laws. Sounds shitty, but he got paid several hundred bucks a week for 20 hours or so of pretty hard labor. Instead of going to work retail and earn slightly more, my friend began advertising with his now-partner and the 4 or 5 guys began to do all right. Sure, they weren't rolling in dough but for mowing lawns and keeping your apartment it's not horrible.

That was a while ago. Now my friend is working at a gas station because he can't compete. One guy in a truck can supply enough immigrant labor to take out any legal competition and still make more money.

I don't see how the immigrants are anything but scabs.

When all you have to make ends meet is selling your labor, and someone comes in and agrees to sell his labor for less than you can live on then he is a scab. He is taking money out of your pocket, he is robbing you of food, he is making your labor worth less.

And when all you have to sell is labor, someone who makes your labor worth less is your enemy and a scab.

That's just how I see it. And don't get me wrong, many immigrants come from nasty places and are in search of money to feed their families. And the man selling illegal labor to affluent people highlights the root problem. But the immigrants are still scabs, like someone who takes the non-union job at wal mart is a scab to all the ufcw people who will, as a result, find it harder to maintain their standards.

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh ok, thank you. I still support that point quite firmly, that immigrant labor needs to be unionized and not undercut pre-existing labor victories. I guess I will be restricted for a while.

Thanks again.

[Jazzratt]

Module:

I want everybody to have a choice - including the bourgeoisie. If they don't agree to communism then nobody has any right to enforce it upon them.
Similarly, I want the fetus to have a choice to live, and I want white workers to have the choice not to live in a community plagued by the criminal activity of ethnic minorities and homosexuals.
Care to explain this gem to us?

[Module]

ARE YOU SERIOUS that was a JOKE. I changed my avatar from a smiling thumb to a thumb with a Hitler moustache!!!!
That was totally well established at the time that that was a joke to get me banned, and then I was unbanned a few months later!
Oh my god, you think I'd been ranting on about abortion for all the years of my membership suddenly just to turn around and talk about bloody fetuses?!
Does my reputation as an over-sensitive Discrimination-forum-obsessive not endure clear sarcasm??!!

[Le Libérer]

ARE YOU SERIOUS that was a JOKE. I changed my avatar from a smiling thumb to a thumb with a Hitler moustache!!!!
That was totally well established at the time that that was a joke to get me banned, and then I was unbanned a few months later!
Oh my god, you think I'd been ranting on about abortion for all the years of my membership suddenly just to turn around and talk about bloody fetuses?!
Does my reputation as an over-sensitive Discrimination-forum-obsessive not endure clear sarcasm??!!

Well the problem here is we have access to the whole thread. It was created by Bilan to ban you. You agreed your views were reactionary and asked to be banned because of them, which I carried out.

You response above wasnt done in a joking manner nor were the allegations.

[Module]

Wait, so are you accusing me of actually believing that? I don't understand.
It was ages ago, so I can't quite remember, but I am pretty close to certain that that whole episode happened before my restriction, in order that I be banned.
Then I was unbanned, evidently, and at a later date restricted, evidently, because I said that I didn't agree with revolutionary socialism any more.

[Le Libérer]

Wait, so are you accusing me of actually believing that? I don't understand.
It was ages ago, so I can't quite remember, but I am pretty close to certain that that whole episode happened before my restriction, in order that I be banned.
Then I was unbanned, evidently, and at a later date restricted, evidently, because I said that I didn't agree with revolutionary socialism any more.

Series of events.
Bilan called for your restriction/and or ban.
You admitting he was right.
You asking to be banned instead.
I banned you.
You asked me to unban you, I unban you.
You announce you are no longer a leftist wishing for a restriction.

SO here we are 2 years later, asking how your views have changed back to warrant being unrestricted.

[Che a chara]

can i pwease get my restriction looked at ? I haven't had a response before yet despite this being my 4th time in asking, so i think i've been patient on the issue :D plus it's fucking christmas you scroogy bastards

[Decolonize The Left]

can i pwease get my restriction looked at ? I haven't had a response before yet despite this being my 4th time in asking, so i think i've been patient on the issue :D plus it's fucking christmas you scroogy bastards

Given that I worship baby jesus on an hourly basis and 'tis the season for expressing our gratitude to the lord and savior of all living things both big and small, I have decided that jesus would want me to raise your appeal in the mod forum and have done so.

On the other hand, I also worship numerous ancient Greek gods and goddesses on the hourly basis and several of them are constructing an appeal to have me issue you with infraction after infraction simply because they're drunk and bored.

So we'll see how it all plays out...

- August

[Sentinel]

can i pwease get my restriction looked at ?When were you restricted, and how long ago did you come to the conclusion that being anti-choice is an incorrect position?

[Che a chara]

When were you restricted, and how long ago did you come to the conclusion that being anti-choice is an incorrect position?

I was restricted probably 7-8 months back, and changed my position about 6-7 months ago.

Do youse keep the 'Unfair Restriction' thread in archive anywhere ? I had a few good debates on previous ones regarding my anti-choice position and my change in stance was addressed on there.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would like to appeal my restriction. I was restricted because of the immigration thread I started. I think it's clear, from where that thread went, that I'm obviously not a reactionary in that regard.

[F9]

you=kidding
right?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No, if you read the thread it's clear my restriction was unwarranted.

[F9]

Yeah, a ban would be better but what to do;)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I know it takes more work than making one liners, but if you actually read the material in question it's clear my restriction was unwarranted. I do not mean the initial post, but the whole thread, incuding a post in which a mod wrote "we are all pretty much in agreement then" concerning the entire issue at hand.

If you are unable to do this because of a lack of time or interest, you shouldn't be a mod who makes decisions over restricting and/or banning users.

[Palingenisis]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/palingenesis-t147615/index.html

No Admin has answered the questions raised here about my restriction.

I would like to know exactly why I was restricted and also why I never received any infractions prior to restriction if I was violating the rules so much?

[Palingenisis]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/undecided-abortion-t147381/index.html

My views on abortion in general are on this thread (notice that some of my posts there were thanked by a Pro-choice anarchist...They are hardly the stuff of operation rescue :rolleyes:)...Also I clarified my postion on the banning of abortion in the USSR already as being understandable but wrong.

[Palingenisis]

No admin has addressed me here but finally they have made some comments in the other thread.

Firstly in reference to pigs in Israel I was refering to members of the IDF...I regard them as pigs.

Also as others such as Devrim pointed out Israel is an incredibily racist society...Participation in the zionist project really warps people, that warping is not based on DNA but on their de-humanization of the Palestinians, etc.

[Palingenisis]

Again....I have never put jews and pigs together. Ever.

So Miles is making things up.

[Palingenisis]

Can I get some sort of an answer here?

[Jazzratt]

Not really no.

We generally don't vote on the same thing more than once every three months so you'd have to pull up something exceptional for it to matter.

Any more posts by you in this thread (unless they are, of course, exceptional) will be given an infraction, as per the rules of this thread. That includes any irritating posts you were thinking of making quoting this one.

[Palingenisis]

You also generally give reasons which makes appeals possible...This is obviously an unfair restriction and you probably realize that full well (if we met on the street I doubt you would be able to look me in the eyes...if you arent able to look someone in the eyes than things are very wrong no?)...Can you accept that your bullying hasnt been that popular so that we can all move on?

And oh yeah the fact that NO reason has been given makes this expectional.

Also its hard not suspect that sexism wasnt involved...That its a matter of boys not liking opinionated girls (though thankfully thats not true of a lot of boys...it is a sexist pattern.

[synthesis]

Not really no.

We generally don't vote on the same thing more than once every three months so you'd have to pull up something exceptional for it to matter.

Any more posts by you in this thread (unless they are, of course, exceptional) will be given an infraction, as per the rules of this thread. That includes any irritating posts you were thinking of making quoting this one.

Not to blow this out of proportion, and nothing personal against you, Jazzratt, but this is absurd. This thread is for restricted people to appeal "unfair restrictions" and she hasn't been given anything to appeal; you don't even define "exceptional."

There is a sense of open, unabashed contempt for the seeming majority of posters who disagree with this decision. We (both pro- and anti-restriction people) could start by dealing with this rationally and respectfully.

[Wanted Man]

Not really no.

We generally don't vote on the same thing more than once every three months so you'd have to pull up something exceptional for it to matter.

Any more posts by you in this thread (unless they are, of course, exceptional) will be given an infraction, as per the rules of this thread. That includes any irritating posts you were thinking of making quoting this one.

Internet bureaucracy ftw.

[Sam_b]

Any other posts made in this thread, including posts made by the member in question upon making the original appeal/clarificatory post (i.e. debate posts), will result in an infraction.

Once again, post in this thread for reasons other than those outlined in the OP as well as those outlined in this post, and you will receive an infraction.

Worth a reminder.

[Palingenisis]

Worth a reminder.

The thing is that no clarification has been given.

Which makes the situation expectional as such....Interesting though to see how bureaucratic Anarchists and Trots can be. LOL!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You also generally give reasons which makes appeals possible...This is obviously an unfair restriction and you probably realize that full well (if we met on the street I doubt you would be able to look me in the eyes...if you arent able to look someone in the eyes than things are very wrong no?)...Can you accept that your bullying hasnt been that popular so that we can all move on?

And oh yeah the fact that NO reason has been given makes this expectional.

Also its hard not suspect that sexism wasnt involved...That its a matter of boys not liking opinionated girls (though thankfully thats not true of a lot of boys...it is a sexist pattern.

You know, I don't always agree with you, but you have a solid point here. I personally don't think you should be restricted. Plus I miss you being on the outside of OI to put me in my place in argument. :crying:

As far as Stalinists go, you're one of the okay ones in my perspective. :thumbup:


Interesting though to see how bureaucratic Anarchists and Trots can be. LOL!

But please don't lump my Anarchist ass in with that statement.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Not really no.

We generally don't vote on the same thing more than once every three months so you'd have to pull up something exceptional for it to matter.

Any more posts by you in this thread (unless they are, of course, exceptional) will be given an infraction, as per the rules of this thread. That includes any irritating posts you were thinking of making quoting this one.

Jazzratt,
Usually I agree with you, but this time is not the case. In my humble opinion, she deserves an answer.

Much love anyhow,
Esperanza

[StockholmSyndrome]

Why was I restricted?

[#FF0000]

Looks like it's for being a "social democrat" or something.


After completing Camus' The Rebel, all of my previous reservations about revolutionary Marxism have been confirmed. I can now say with confidence that I reject the notion of a violent overthrow of the capitalist system. That's what got you restricted. Sounds like it was kind of hasty though. Could you describe your politics a bit and explain what you think about socialism, capitalism, communism and revolution and all that?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Looks like it's for being a "social democrat" or something.

That's what got you restricted. Sounds like it was kind of hasty though. Could you describe your politics a bit and explain what you think about socialism, capitalism, communism and revolution and all that?

I am opposed to the injustices that are associated with capitalism (exploitation, inequality, war). I do not, however, have any all encompassing ideological response to these problems. I am open to anything so long as it is committed to nonviolence, democracy (economic and political), transparency, and the individual. I suppose I could be called a democratic socialist. Honestly, I'm not surprised that I got restricted, I was somewhat expecting it, I just thought it would come along with maybe a short PM officially explaining why, speaking of transparency.

[#FF0000]

I am opposed to the injustices that are associated with capitalism (exploitation, inequality, war). I do not, however, have any all encompassing ideological response to these problems. I am open to anything so long as it is committed to nonviolence, democracy (economic and political), transparency, and the individual. I suppose I could be called a democratic socialist. Honestly, I'm not surprised that I got restricted, I was somewhat expecting it, I just thought it would come along with maybe a short PM officially explaining why, speaking of transparency.

Yeaah these things are posted in the "Admin Actions" thread in the Member's forum. But, yeah, doesn't seem like there's anything I can do in this case. Democratic Socialists/Social Democrats are restricted (Depending on your definition of Democratic Socialist).

Wasn't Camus an anarchist anyway?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Camus may or may not have been an anarchist. I certainly sympathize with anarchism and lean to the far left of "democratic socialism". I might even go so far as to call myself a libertarian socialist. I don't see how being opposed to violent revolution is inherently at odds with anarchism/libertarian socialism. I support what is realistic in the short term i.e. reforms. So did Camus and so does Noam Chomsky. Would Chomsky be restricted on Revleft?

[#FF0000]

Let me put it this way. Do you think society should be or needs to be changed through revolution, violent or nonviolent?

[Palingenisis]

Wasn't Camus an anarchist anyway?

No...He was a piggy wiggy.

Some anarchists are actually working class (niave) revolutionaires....Wouldnt want to mix them up with him.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Some anarchists are actually working class (niave) revolutionaires....Wouldnt want to mix them up with him.
Am I naive? Oh this hurts feelings.:crying: Okay enough of my theatrics.

[Palingenisis]

All anarchism is niave...Authoritarianism is a sign of weakness and not strength...And sometimes its very necessary.

[F9]

you are like the last people that can talk about naivety...

[Havet]

Let me put it this way. Do you think society should be or needs to be changed through revolution, violent or nonviolent?

Yes

[StockholmSyndrome]

Let me put it this way. Do you think society should be or needs to be changed through revolution, violent or nonviolent?

I would have no problem with a nonviolent revolution. It must be libertarian though.

"A revolutionary action which wishes to be coherent in terms of its origins should be embodied in an active consent to the relative. Uncompromising as to its means, it would accept an approximation as far as its ends are concerned and, so that the approximation should become more and more accurately defined, it would allow absolute freedom of speech. Thus it would preserve the common existence which justifies its insurrection."- A.C.

[#FF0000]

Well then I think you should be unrestricted even though this pacifism business is totally silly.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

All anarchism is niave...Authoritarianism is a sign of weakness and not strength...And sometimes its very necessary.
I <3 u anyhow.

[StockholmSyndrome]

So how do I go about getting unrestricted?

[#FF0000]

I go bother an admin.

[psgchisolm]

I would have no problem with a nonviolent revolution. It must be libertarian though.

"A revolutionary action which wishes to be coherent in terms of its origins should be embodied in an active consent to the relative. Uncompromising as to its means, it would accept an approximation as far as its ends are concerned and, so that the approximation should become more and more accurately defined, it would allow absolute freedom of speech. Thus it would preserve the common existence which justifies its insurrection."- A.C.
It's not particularly a Libertarian. I call myself a Revolutionary Democratic Socialist. In the real sense of the word not the interchangable Social Democrat type. JOIN ME, it's so lonely being the only one :(, but in all seriousness. I think you should have your restriction undone. I might have been in your same spot if a mod would've gone the harsh route.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Ok I would like to officially appeal my restriction. The Admin Actions forum says it was because I am a "social democrat". I think I have shown that I am not (a social democrat) in my previous posts on this thread. Though I called myself a "democratic socialist", I then clarified this as not being the typical social democratic position. I reject Marxism. I reject violence and state terror as tactics, and I support reforms which have greatly improved the lives of working and oppressed people, but I am not a social democrat. I oppose the capitalist system and I support its being replaced. I believe radical syndicalism should be the ultimate vehicle for this change and I identify most strongly with anarcho-syndicalism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Ok I would like to officially appeal my restriction. The Admin Actions forum says it was because I am a "social democrat". I think I have shown that I am not (a social democrat) in my previous posts on this thread. Though I called myself a "democratic socialist", I then clarified this as not being the typical social democratic position. I reject Marxism. I reject violence and state terror as tactics, and I support reforms which have greatly improved the lives of working and oppressed people, but I am not a social democrat. I oppose the capitalist system and I support its being replaced. I believe radical syndicalism should be the ultimate vehicle for this change and I identify most strongly with anarcho-syndicalism.

I will PM this post to an admin.

- August

[Jazzratt]

I have now opened a discussion on StocholmSyndrome.

[Che a chara]

*ahem* :crying: :)

[Palingenisis]

*ahem* :crying: :)

At least you know why you were restricted a chara ;).

Im still waiting for reason so I can appeal.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I guess its been settled then. I'm a social democrat. I remember listening to a talk by Michael Albert where he discussed violence vs. non-violence as a tactic. He concluded that in this day and age advocating for violent revolution is childish and suicidal. For those of us who are serious about winning, we must rethink the strategy of the left and stop thinking about people as if they were cannon fodder.

[#FF0000]

I guess its been settled then. I'm a social democrat. I remember listening to a talk by Michael Albert where he discussed violence vs. non-violence as a tactic. He concluded that in this day and age advocating for violent revolution is childish and suicidal. For those of us who are serious about winning, we must rethink the strategy of the left and stop thinking about people as if they were cannon fodder.

It depends on what you mean by a "violent revolution". I don't think anyone seriously thinks rolling deep with some AKs in the woods and making revolution like it was a military campaign is a good idea at all in the context of the United States and Europe. At the same time, peaceful protest and civil disobedience can only go so far. Violence is a tactic that is useful sometimes and not useful other times. That's all.

In the West, violence isn't going to do much good. (In my opinion, nothing can do much good at the present time. Revolutionaries can't "create" struggle) but when it comes to folks like the Naxalites in India, peaceful protest is what's suicide.

Also no one here thinks of people as cannon fodder. I don't know where that silly thing came from.

[StockholmSyndrome]

In my opinion, nothing can do much good at the present time...

Looks like your mooky self should be restricted for apathy.

[Sam_b]

Can't be restricted for apathy.

Again I think Unfair Restrictions is becoming a free-for-all. Could an admin keep an eye on it with regards to the first post, perhaps?

[Palingenisis]

Was Sam_B the teachers pet or what? :laugh:

[Decolonize The Left]

Was Sam_B the teachers pet or what? :laugh:

No, he's just noting the rules of this thread. If I was still an admin I'd have issued a lot of infractions at this point...

- August

[The Count]

Lmfao, I got restricted for saying that national sovereignty is important. Just ignore all of the Communist leaders who believed in the same thing... Stalin, Mao, etc.

[#FF0000]

Lmfao, I got restricted for saying that national sovereignty is important. Just ignore all of the Communist leaders who believed in the same thing... Stalin, Mao, etc.

It's not so much because of the "national sovereignty" bit as much as it's about the "goob goob border security goob goob illegal immigration goob goob" bit.

[Palingenisis]

Lmfao, I got restricted for saying that national sovereignty is important. Just ignore all of the Communist leaders who believed in the same thing... Stalin, Mao, etc.

They didnt believe in national sovereignty though as an end in itself but rather as a means to an end. There is a qualitive difference between a proletarian illegal immigrant who is motitivated by economic survival and Nazi or Japanese Imperialist tanks.

Also dont you believe that the Palestinians have no right to expel the zionist land thieves? :confused:

[Ele'ill]

Just a reminder to keep conversation out of this thread.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Can Palingenisis get unrestricted finally? I miss debating with her. Plus she listens to some really interesting trippy music.

[Lt. Ferret]

the idea that the little nazi palingenises could potentitally be unrestricted but im a syndicalist and im stuck here is ridiculous.

[Revolution starts with U]

It seems you both should be. But you can't think saying "i hope afghani children die" and "people in appalachia choose to be poor" is grounds for your being unrestricted?

(sry, I never post here, but I had to on that. You'll hear no more from me :thumbup1: )

[Lt. Ferret]

when did i ever say that i hoped afghan children die?

and i didnt say all people in appalachia im talking about a very distinct group of people that choose to live in the mountains away from civilization, in a very voluntary way. they choose that lifestyle.

[#FF0000]

You should both be unrestricted and everyone should shut up.

also people are hella dumb for misunderstanding what Lt. Baby Killing Imperialist Swine was saying in that thread.

[Palingenisis]

the idea that the little nazi palingenises could potentitally be unrestricted but im a syndicalist and im stuck here is ridiculous.

You are as much that I as believe that ComradeMan is a fluffy bunny who should be chuddled and loved....Wait you are as much that as I believe that you are a cuddly bunny.

[Lt. Ferret]

I am in fact a cuddly bunny.

[Delirium]

seem more like a troll to me

[Lt. Ferret]

:rolleyes: I have not yet begun to troll. :rolleyes:

[Ele'ill]

You should all be infracted for posting in this thread.

[Lt. Ferret]

whatever, tattle tale mariel! :(

[Ele'ill]

whatever, tattle tale mariel! :(

It would seem like a better idea to me, and I stress that this is my opinion, to limit the permissions of this thread to Admin, Mod and Restricted Users. The only time it gets out of hand is when regular users venture in here and start chattering. But I'm not even sure that it matters anymore.

[F9]

Ok here we go, AW gone CU, i got a mod, Jazzy seems busy, and i dont see the other admins either except few exceptions, and this thread while was going on topic for a while since the harsh modding policy, but now its just gone shit lately so... Esperanza Xochitl,Lt. Ferret,The Artist Formerly Known As Best Mod,Palingenisis and Delirium consider this a verbal warning and you are getting that cause it would seem ridiculous to infract 5 people and also others did the same thing the pages before, but its the last warning, infractions will be start issued directly after this post again.
Now keep it on the damn topic please!!!!!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ok here we go, AW gone CU, i got a mod, Jazzy seems busy, and i dont see the other admins either except few exceptions, and this thread while was going on topic for a while since the harsh modding policy, but now its just gone shit lately so... Esperanza Xochitl,Lt. Ferret,The Artist Formerly Known As Best Mod,Palingenisis and Delirium consider this a verbal warning and you are getting that cause it would seem ridiculous to infract 5 people and also others did the same thing the pages before, but its the last warning, infractions will be start issued directly after this post again.
Now keep it on the damn topic please!!!!!
This is about unfair restrictions, that is the topic. I was stating my view that it's not fair that Palingenisis is restricted if that is a reason to infract me than so be it.

[Jazzratt]

This is about unfair restrictions, that is the topic. I was stating my view that it's not fair that Palingenisis is restricted if that is a reason to infract me than so be it. Read the rules again:


So in short, you may post in this thread if your post involves the following:
- Appealing your restriction which has not already been appealed within the past 6 months. This consists of your personal posts which demonstrate a) why your restriction was unjustified and/or b) how you have changed since.
- Requesting clarification for your restriction. This refers to the rules you violated and the evidence against you. You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses, and/or, the responses at hand do not meet the criteria outlined above.


It is, in fact, reason to issue an infraction; however I've not been in this thread for a few days and it seems Fuser took the sensible route of handing out verbals to everyone. If yo think these rules are unfair take it to the member's forum.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Read the rules again:



It is, in fact, reason to issue an infraction; however I've not been in this thread for a few days and it seems Fuser took the sensible route of handing out verbals to everyone. If yo think these rules are unfair take it to the member's forum.
I know this may be culturally difficult for you to understand but following rules, waiting in line and running on time are not my strong points. However this discussion is boring me and I've stated where I stand so I'm going to go off into a different subject somewhere else on the board. Ya'know, something more interesting.

[Jazzratt]

I know this may be culturally difficult for you to understand but following rules, waiting in line and running on time are not my strong points. However this discussion is boring me and I've stated where I stand so I'm going to go off into a different subject somewhere else on the board. Ya'know, something more interesting. I don't care what your "strong points" are. If you don't follow the board rules you shouldn't expect to be treated like a special case. I have given you ample leniency and now my patience has officially run out. I hope you like your infraction.

[GreenCommunism]

Hello i would like to become unrestricted again, and then after that i would try to make a case to be unbanned from the irc channel as well.

[F9]

why were you restricted, why the case of your restriction no more stands and how did you changed your mind on the case?

[GreenCommunism]

I was restricted on the forum because i was a third worldist for a little while. i do not remember why i was banned from the irc channel but i believe it was for slurs i think homophobia but it could be sexism or racism.

i was restricted the 4th october but banned from the irc channel a long time ago, i did not bother trying to get unbanned, i was already banned another time ago and had to appeal, but then got banned shortly after for a slur ( rightly so).

i should be unrestricted simply because i am no longer a third worldist.

i changed my mind because third worldism includes a large and violent change in society that i am scared of, if anything i do not really want to take part in the violent part of it. third worldism does include a dictatorship of the third world on the first world, and that would be inacceptable. it goes against human rights. i am mostly trying to open my horizon to other ideology as well like liberalism,conservatism, libertarianism.

As for homophobia i can only say that i am sorry and that i work on myself to not use those words to denote other mens as inferior or so.

[Bandito]

As for homophobia i can only say that i am sorry and that i work on myself to not use those words to denote other mens as inferior or so.
Not being homophobic means a bit more than refraining from certain phrases, you know?

[Rjevan]

i do not remember why i was banned from the irc channel but i believe it was for slurs i think homophobia but it could be sexism or racism.
[...]
i changed my mind because third worldism includes a large and violent change in society that i am scared of [...] i am mostly trying to open my horizon to other ideology as well like liberalism,conservatism, libertarianism.
Not exactly what one calls an effective plea... :huh:

Bandito already addressed the homophobia point. At least your working at yourself in this regard but what about sexist and racist views which, according to yourself, could have been the reason, too?

Further, you are aware that socialism/communism/anarchism also "include a large and violent change in society"? If that's the main reason why you reject M3Wism you will have to reject the views of most people outside of OI aswell - this becomes even clearer by the three ideologies you are "opening your horizon" to. They'll also get your restricted on this forum.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I ask to be unrestricted.

I was restricted for saying that illegal immigrants or undocumented workers may be a economic burden on workers in this country. I still hold that point however that's only under the existing economic system and I have never called for deportation or border patrol or anything like that.

[F9]

I still hold that point

then stfu and quit posting here.You have been informed few times now that in order for your restriction to be lifted you have to change your mind.

[Lt. Ferret]

but it IS a fucking burden on the workers of this country under the present system.

[PhoenixAsh]

I ask to be unrestricted.

I was restricted for saying that illegal immigrants or undocumented workers may be a economic burden on workers in this country. I still hold that point however that's only under the existing economic system and I have never called for deportation or border patrol or anything like that.


What I can remember you stated you were for the limited influx through law of (illigal) immigrants...

There is no denying that the influx of illegal immigrants and imigrants from cheap labor countries is being exploited by the burgeoisie governments to put pressure on the workers rights, minimum wages and job security by creating labour surplus.

This is not because of the (illegal) immigrants but because of the system. This is a position manyn communist parties across europe have taken back in the 70's when all this started to play.

They stated that although this is the case the illigal immmigrant is not to blame and that laws limiting influx of workers and refugees is a cover and deflection tactic for political and economic agenda's that mask the real motivations. Its a devisionary strategy.

They know they can not effectively stop the influx of new people without hampering open trade and globalisation...and they do not wish to do so for the obvious reason that it undermined worker unity. Such initiatives are thus no more than show-politics to create worker insolidarity to point to a symptom and not the cause.

Calling for laws to stop immigration, legal or illegal, is denying the underlying problems.
- The problems of exploitation that creates an economic and political situation in the home countries that need escaping
- The nature of the current economic system that depends on devision between workers, scape goating, and continued pressure on the work-relations to the disadvantage of the workers.
- break workers unity

Joining the call for limitations is playing into this agenda. Its not the immigrants fault and freedom of movement and the right to work should not be hampered....by revolutionaries joining the call for such obvious attempts by the capitalists but should work to better the rights of the immigrants, point out the root causes, and solve the problem.



I sincerely appologise for my post...I know its not the place to post it in this thread...but I could not let this one pass seeing as its a very nasty and continuing deception.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Um, I assume you're posting for fuserg?

Because I agree with everything you just wrote, hence why undocumented workers can be a burden on the working class in the countries they emigrate to in the current economic system. I have never called for limitations on immigration, deportation, english only laws, racial profiling or anything along these lines. If your post, hindsight, was directed at me then I think you have misplaced some, albeit righteous, frustration.


then stfu and quit posting here.You have been informed few times now that in order for your restriction to be lifted you have to change your mind.

Change my mind? What the fuck? Do you read, or do you just copy and paste? Are you even capable of thought or are the one liners to continue? I've gotten more in depth and critical responses from a broken ATM then from you sir.

To say that undocumented workers have NOT been used by employers to lower wages and are, in fact, NOT a labor pool that has zero rights and can be deported on a whim is the reactionary position here, fuserg. If that's the position I need to hold to be unrestricted that's fine, but it is a detachment from reality.

[RGacky3]

but it IS a fucking burden on the workers of this country under the present system

Source? How is it a burden?

[Revolution starts with U]

If you disagree with it, you don't understand capitalism. Undocumented workers under the current system are not protected by the minimum wage law. They are a pool of workers the capitalist can call on to suppress the value of work (lower wages). It creates a nation-wide race to the bottom. The problem is not with either of the workers tho. They're both just trying to feed themselves and family.
The solution?
End all borders is one solution. No person should be illegal, and all should be protected by at least a minimum wage.
Total amnesty is another solution. BUt the racists would shit their pants :lol:
Or you could just abolish capitalism :scared:

[PhoenixAsh]

Um, I assume you're posting for fuserg?

Because I agree with everything you just wrote, hence why undocumented workers can be a burden on the working class in the countries they emigrate to in the current economic system. I have never called for limitations on immigration, deportation, english only laws, racial profiling or anything along these lines. If your post, hindsight, was directed at me then I think you have misplaced some, albeit righteous, frustration.



Yes

But to point out the difference of though....or at least wording...

The illegals are not the burden. Its the system. Thinking the illegals are the burden is denying the underlying concept...and actually gives in to what they (capitalists) want.

It deflects the focus away from how its the system that is exploiting them...and yuses a scapegoat to create division amongst workers.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I see your point.

Slavery was a burden on wage earners centuries ago, but the slaves can't be blamed. We are really in complete agreement.

Anyways, back to the original point, it's clear the reason for my restriction is no longer valid.

[GreenCommunism]

i don't want my older post to be used systematically against me please, just in case.


Not being homophobic means a bit more than refraining from certain phrases, you know? well i understand that i must purge myself of all sphere and types of homophobia or attitude and behavior manifesting it, however i believe this is a perpetual fight for all of us to resist not sexist ,homophobic or racist ideas but rather those of seclusion into our own community. The fight against sexist,homophobic and racist ideas are symptoms of the historical domination of the white heterosexual male. Since those ideas specifically target white heterosexual male and are important to fight , it is important and perhaps crucial to the struggle to take a strong stance against past historical ideas or resurgence of school of thought which inevitably leads to oppression of communities by their logical conclusions.


Not exactly what one calls an effective plea... :huh:

Bandito already addressed the homophobia point. At least your working at yourself in this regard but what about sexist and racist views which, according to yourself, could have been the reason, too?

Further, you are aware that socialism/communism/anarchism also "include a large and violent change in society"? If that's the main reason why you reject M3Wism you will have to reject the views of most people outside of OI aswell - this becomes even clearer by the three ideologies you are "opening your horizon" to. They'll also get your restricted on this forum. i think i answered for some of the sexist views there. can you specify exactly what you are against?

My activism if i can call it so wish to attack structure in which human beings cannot develop their full potential, suffer psychologically, or are unfairly economically exploited . I join communism as an ideology that is sound and works, i have changed mindset from a communist to a person which follows communist for his own goal because this was the right way to be all along.

I must know other ideas in order to accurately first explain the system and then point out it's failures. I feel that there is a slow but steady degradation of the quality of debates in our society and that this is something we must fight if our youth is to be able to criticize and think for itself and i believe attitudes such as refusing to read open one's mind to new horizons simply leads to rotten organisation but maybe it was rotten all along. the trotskyist act according to what trotsky and other trotskyist did, and so do the stalinist, they tend to acception expulsion more readily. those are real structures which oppress us.

[Jazzratt]

Hey hey, just here to hand out some infractions because apparently none of you fuckstumps can read or follow simple instructions. :rolleyes:

Just so my inbox is full of you guys crying a river at the injustice of it all the rules I'm reffering to specifically are the ones on the first fucking page of this thread specifically prohibiting debate. If you want to debate about immigration you have the multifarious splendours of the main OI forum.

Finally, because I'm unreasonably kind, I haven't infracted each offending post people have made before this warning. Subsequent to this I will be. Unless you are part of the moderation team or a restrictee submitting (or clarifying) their case for unrestiction you have no business posting here.

[Viet Minh]

Hi I am not 100% sure why I am restricted, probably because I can't make my mind up about where I stand.. I still won't categorize myself but the more I learn here the more I tend towards Democratic Socialism. I made the mistake of saying I was a Liberal Democrat before, I supported a gradual change through Liberal politics, however the problem is it is used as a pacifying tool to the masses, ie create a welfare state, healthcare etc to appease the proletarians, but equally these positive changes can be rescinded just as easily, as we see now in the UK. Whats needed now is a more radical change to the system, with a view to long term positive changes, not just short term profiteering.

Anyway no big debate needed, I'm okay being restricted if that's the way it is, I just got annoyed not being able to chuck in my 2 cents to some interesting threads!

[Milk Sheikh]

Finally, because I'm unreasonably kind,

Made me :laugh:

Anyway, care to 'unrestrict' me any time soon? You know this Saddamist thing is a joke, and the only reason for my supporting him is to make a point about Stalinists. It's more like playing the devil's advocate than giving actual support.

So why don't you unrestrict me?:)

[GreenCommunism]

Can my request be taken care of? i have posted so i argue that my case should be dealt with first. thank you. i posted on march 1st.

[Communist Guy]

Can someone unrestrict me?

I was restricted ages ago and can't remember why :p

[Sam_b]

I personally beleive abortion is wrong and is like murder.

I think it should only be used in cases of underage children or people to weak to have a child where it is a risk for your life.

Otherwise abortion is wrong. You are preventing someone from living. .

[Communist Guy]

Yeah. I've changed my views on that.

I still maintain that I still personally disagree with abortion but I am very pro-choice. I just happen to have made the other choice. I still support the right to have a choice.

Please unrestrict me? :p

[Blackscare]

Can my request be taken care of? i have posted so i argue that my case should be dealt with first. thank you. i posted on march 1st.

I saw you thanking those posts from the now banned (I think) anti-semite.

"Hey guys, I'm just sayin, there's a lot of rich jew bankers around. Just saying, not an anti-semite or anything..."



So no, you still have really weird quasi-fascist beliefs, the same ones I've seen you express on the boards, in IRC, and on tinychat.


I would rather you be banned, to be honest, but I'll settle for you just never being able to post on the regular boards again.

[Blackscare]

Here's the link to the post in question, make your own decision:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2038041&postcount=3


And in case that slime ball unthanks it, here's some documentation:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1676/greencommunism.png

[Limonov]

I was restricted on the forum because i was a third worldist for a little while. i do not remember why i was banned from the irc channel but i believe it was for slurs i think homophobia but it could be sexism or racism.

i was restricted the 4th october but banned from the irc channel a long time ago, i did not bother trying to get unbanned, i was already banned another time ago and had to appeal, but then got banned shortly after for a slur ( rightly so).

i should be unrestricted simply because i am no longer a third worldist.

i changed my mind because third worldism includes a large and violent change in society that i am scared of, if anything i do not really want to take part in the violent part of it. third worldism does include a dictatorship of the third world on the first world, and that would be inacceptable. it goes against human rights. i am mostly trying to open my horizon to other ideology as well like liberalism,conservatism, libertarianism.

As for homophobia i can only say that i am sorry and that i work on myself to not use those words to denote other mens as inferior or so.

What is this, you coward? You are scared of justice? You are scared of equality? Obviously you seek to consolidate the gains that world capital has secured, but how comfortable are you with the blood of the third world on your hands? Acknowledge that justice includes your head on a pike, and then we can begin working toward a just economic order in this world.

[RGacky3]

I have a question, the anti-abortion restriction, is it only for those that advocate anti-abortion legislation? Or does it include those who oppose it from a moral standpoint, but do not advocate anti-abortion legislation?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would like to be unrestricted. It is clear at this juncture that my restriction was both beyond belief and unjust.

[GreenCommunism]

I saw you thanking those posts from the now banned (I think) anti-semite.

"Hey guys, I'm just sayin, there's a lot of rich jew bankers around. Just saying, not an anti-semite or anything..."



So no, you still have really weird quasi-fascist beliefs, the same ones I've seen you express on the boards, in IRC, and on tinychat.


I would rather you be banned, to be honest, but I'll settle for you just never being able to post on the regular boards again.

I would like to ask you your age,education,class please.

as for me 22 years old,autodidact since 4th secondary,lumpenproletariat.

[GreenCommunism]

accusation of anti-semitism are too emotionally charged to be able to reasonably give an answer, if any of this discussion is ever put forward it will be under the format of essays or there will be no discussion.

[GreenCommunism]

What is this, you coward? You are scared of justice? You are scared of equality? Obviously you seek to consolidate the gains that world capital has secured, but how comfortable are you with the blood of the third world on your hands? Acknowledge that justice includes your head on a pike, and then we can begin working toward a just economic order in this world.

What are material possession when one seeks spiritual supremacy?

[#FF0000]

accusation of anti-semitism are too emotionally charged to be able to reasonably give an answer, if any of this discussion is ever put forward it will be under the format of essays or there will be no discussion.

We're just asking you why you repped some anti-semitic bullshit.

[Blackscare]

I would like to ask you your age,education,class please.

as for me 22 years old,autodidact since 4th secondary,lumpenproletariat.

Twenty, self-taught (working two jobs), and obviously working class.



That has absolutely nothing to do with anything, though, unless you can explain why you thanked that post, troll.

[Communist Guy]

What about me??

:D

[GreenCommunism]

We're just asking you why you repped some anti-semitic bullshit.
as i told you before, i keep on writing long text and deleting them for they are nonsense, this psychological pressure and the free insults are a not a good psychological climate at all.

[GreenCommunism]

Twenty, self-taught (working two jobs), and obviously working class.



That has absolutely nothing to do with anything, though, unless you can explain why you thanked that post, troll.

self taught? i meant your real class background, i am from rural areas far from decadent cities, what kind of areas do you live in?

[danyboy27]

greencommunism, the question is fairly simple.

why did you give a thanks to this absurd, anti-semitic post?

[Decolonize The Left]

greencommunism, the question is fairly simple.

why did you give a thanks to this absurd, anti-semitic post?

Greencommunism is not going to answer this question because greencommunism is a troll plain-and-simple.

This member's past posts in this thread alone is testimony to this fact:
1. Challenging/demanding another member's class background

I would like to ask you your age,education,class please.
2. Avoiding the simple question (which you again posed here)

accusation of anti-semitism are too emotionally charged to be able to reasonably give an answer, if any of this discussion is ever put forward it will be under the format of essays or there will be no discussion.
3. Clearly trolling this thread with posts like:

What are material possession when one seeks spiritual supremacy?

If I were still in red, I'd make a thread in the mod forum to ban this troll.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

I have a question, the anti-abortion restriction, is it only for those that advocate anti-abortion legislation? Or does it include those who oppose it from a moral standpoint, but do not advocate anti-abortion legislation?

A couple things.

The first is that you cannot "oppose abortion from a moral standpoint" but still be pro-choice. If you are actually saying this is possible, then you are saying that it is entirely acceptable to have completely incoherent and contradictory philosophical positions.
Ex: I oppose murder from a moral standpoint but it's ok to murder in case Z.
In the example above, you have just stated how murder is not to be opposed from a moral standpoint (so long as it's case Z). So you're saying that it's conditionally acceptable, which means you are not holding an absolute moral position vis-a-vis murder.

So you're whole claim that you can oppose abortion but be pro-choice is total nonsense and a poor attempt to circumvent the rules of this board.

The second point is that the rules are plain and simple:

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.

Read the quote above. Now read it again. Simple, no?

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

August,

Your point doesn't hold up to the test.

There are loads of people, mainly religious, who think suicide is morally wrong yet know that things like euthanasia should be left up to the individual's family or by their will. There are people who think that using illicit drugs are morally wrong, yet believe that punishing people in the current manner is the greater injustice. Likewise the viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong shouldn't define someone as long as they agree that it is not their decision but that of the woman in question to decide if she gets one.

As long as Gacky agrees that it is not his belief, in any case whatsoever, to restrict the use of abortion in any way shape or form, then there really is no reason for his restriction.

I personally think some tatoos are ridiculous. However that doesn't mean I want to purge society of all bad tatoo art.


Anyways....I am completely against border patrol, deportation, or any other anti-immigrant action or legislation and have never called for any of these things. I am for the complete documentation and full legal rights for every undocumented worker in the US, and indeed the world.

[T-Paine]

A couple things.

The first is that you cannot "oppose abortion from a moral standpoint" but still be pro-choice. If you are actually saying this is possible, then you are saying that it is entirely acceptable to have completely incoherent and contradictory philosophical positions.
Ex: I oppose murder from a moral standpoint but it's ok to murder in case Z.
In the example above, you have just stated how murder is not to be opposed from a moral standpoint (so long as it's case Z). So you're saying that it's conditionally acceptable, which means you are not holding an absolute moral position vis-a-vis murder.

So you're whole claim that you can oppose abortion but be pro-choice is total nonsense and a poor attempt to circumvent the rules of this board.



Not everyone believes in legislating their personal morality in all cases, how is that a hard concept to understand?

I am in the same boat as Gacky. Abortion is against my personal morality in non-vital situations because you're preventing someone from living, and I don't take my existence for granted. So if I had to make the decision personally I would not abort (I would never be put into that position though because I'm not a woman.) This doesn't mean I want a law that strips women of their right to make the decision for themselves. You can be personally against abortion and still be pro-choice, and that is an opinion held by some elected officials.

I definitely understand the need for your community to have restrictions to avoid invasions by dirty "cappies" such as myself, but I don't see the benefit of purging people on their beliefs on abortion. Especially when they agree on the more important points - socialism, revolution, etc. No harm in diversity, just my 2 cents.

[Viet Minh]

A couple things.

The first is that you cannot "oppose abortion from a moral standpoint" but still be pro-choice. If you are actually saying this is possible, then you are saying that it is entirely acceptable to have completely incoherent and contradictory philosophical positions.
Ex: I oppose murder from a moral standpoint but it's ok to murder in case Z.
In the example above, you have just stated how murder is not to be opposed from a moral standpoint (so long as it's case Z). So you're saying that it's conditionally acceptable, which means you are not holding an absolute moral position vis-a-vis murder.

So you're whole claim that you can oppose abortion but be pro-choice is total nonsense and a poor attempt to circumvent the rules of this board.

Sorry mods I know this isn't a discussion thread, just purely on that point though I would disagree, being morally opposed to soemthing is not always an absolute, in an extreme case like murder it is 'more abolsute' perhaps, but not everyone who is teetotal wants prohibition, and conversely not everyone who supports legalisation of cannabis is a cannabis user. You might say murder is more applicable, granted, but murder is a subjective term most often applied by the pro-life lobby. Thats not to say all pro-lifers are having abortions left right and centre, as a sort of lazy alternative to condoms or the pill, its nobodies first choice, I think most pregnant women, whatever the circumstances, probably feel a great deal of remorse having an abortion. From this point of view you can be morally opposed to abortion to some degree and yet still support its legality. You could also work it on a sliding scale, at what point does a fetus become human? Or to take it to extremes does every sperm have the right to life? Do you prefer the alternative where women attempt to miscarry, or have 'backstreet abortions' by unqualified amateurs? You could also question some of the reasons for abortions, while not outright opposing abortion under any circumstances, for instance parents aborting potentially handicapped children, the whole 'designer baby'/ playing god argument.

EDIT: I am very much pro-chocie, just to clarify, I'm just offended at the implication (as it seemed) that you are either pro-life, or 'pro-murder'

[Decolonize The Left]

Since I made the post, I'll follow it through...

I don't want to post again and again, so this response shall be in reference to CultOfAbeLincoln, T-Paine, and loyal4life.org.

In short, there is no such thing as a 'non-political situation' or a time when you can fundamentally separate your moral convictions and your actions.

You can't say: "that action is wrong, I am morally opposed to it. But it's ok if you do it."
When you say this, you are contradicting yourself.
If it's morally wrong and you are opposed to it, then in order to maintain coherent moral standards, you have to stop the person from doing it.
If it's ok for the person to do it, then you obviously don't think it's morally wrong.

There is no "wrong for me, right for you" in morality. This is called moral relativism, and if you adopt this perspective then you have no moral claim on abortion what-so-ever.

So what I'm trying to say is:

You can be personally against abortion and still be pro-choice, and that is an opinion held by some elected officials.
No you can't. This is a nonsensical statement and totally self-contradictory.

Likewise the viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong shouldn't define someone as long as they agree that it is not their decision but that of the woman in question to decide if she gets one.
Saying "abortion is morally wrong" is taking a political stance on another person's choice. You are not speaking in a vaccuum.

being morally opposed to soemthing is not always an absolute, in an extreme case like murder it is 'more abolsute' perhaps, but not everyone who is teetotal wants prohibition, and conversely not everyone who supports legalisation of cannabis is a cannabis user.
You misunderstood my initial post. I'm not saying everyone who is morally opposed to abortion is a murderer.

I am saying that the claim "I am morally opposed to abortion, but it's ok for people to have abortions" is a bullshit nonsensical claim and demonstrates a fundamentally misunderstanding of what "morally opposed to" means.

- August

[Viet Minh]

Since I made the post, I'll follow it through...

I don't want to post again and again, so this response shall be in reference to CultOfAbeLincoln, T-Paine, and loyal4life.org.

In short, there is no such thing as a 'non-political situation' or a time when you can fundamentally separate your moral convictions and your actions.

You can't say: "that action is wrong, I am morally opposed to it. But it's ok if you do it."
When you say this, you are contradicting yourself.
If it's morally wrong and you are opposed to it, then in order to maintain coherent moral standards, you have to stop the person from doing it.
If it's ok for the person to do it, then you obviously don't think it's morally wrong.

There is no "wrong for me, right for you" in morality. This is called moral relativism, and if you adopt this perspective then you have no moral claim on abortion what-so-ever.

You could equally call it moral realism, for instance with euthanasia, you don't want a loved one to die, it is wrong to let them die, but the alternative is them living a short while in excruciating pain and torment. Or in triage, where a doctor must make a choice between people's lives. Doctors come across this all the time, which is why they probably debate ethics mroe than philosophers would. Cutting off soemones leg is wrong, but if there is a bad infection it is a necessary evil to negate further and possibly more serious problems. A mothers life may be at risk, and abortion is the only option, in this case where do you stand? Is abortion always wrong in this case, or is that an exception? Is that the only exception?


You can be personally against abortion and still be pro-choice, and that is an opinion held by some elected officials.

No you can't. This is a nonsensical statement and totally self-contradictory.

Thats like saying anarchists are pro-murder because they don't agree with incarceration, there's a difference between holding an opinion on something and physically enforcing it.


Likewise the viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong shouldn't define someone as long as they agree that it is not their decision but that of the woman in question to decide if she gets one.


Saying "abortion is morally wrong" is taking a political stance on another person's choice. You are not speaking in a vaccuum.

No saying abortion is morally wrong is expressing your opinion, saying it should be illegal is taking a poltical stance.


You misunderstood my initial post. I'm not saying everyone who is morally opposed to abortion is a murderer.

I am saying that the claim "I am morally opposed to abortion, but it's ok for people to have abortions" is a bullshit nonsensical claim and demonstrates a fundamentally misunderstanding of what "morally opposed to" means.

- August

Okay sorry I took it as an insinuation, reading it again I see it wasn't I took it the wrong way.

Well take for example vegetarians, or vegans, now a lot of them would probably ban the slaughter of animals given the choice, and with very good reason. But not all of them, there may be some that feel it is a personal choice down to the individual. In that case they would prefer to make their opinions on the matter heard, so that others can make an informed decision based on all the infortmation at hand.

[Decolonize The Left]

You could call it moral realism, for instance with euthanasia, you don't want a loved one to die, it is wrong to let them die, but the alternative is them living a short while in excruciating pain and torment. Or in triage, where a doctor must make a choice between people's lives. Doctors come across this all the time, which is why they probably debate ethics mroe than philosophers would. Cutting off soemones leg is wrong, but if there is a bad infection it is a necessary evil to negate further and possibly more serious problems. A mothers life may be at risk, and abortion is the only option, in this case where do you stand? Is abortion always wrong in this case, or is that an exception? Is that the only exception?

I'm not particularly interested in debating ethical theories as I've done this enough in the past. But what you describe here as "moral realism" (which is a silly term) is nothing other utilitarian ethics.


Thats like saying anarchists are pro-murder because they don't agree with incarceration, there's a difference between holding an opinion on something and physically enforcing it.

That's not a valid analogy.

Anarchists are opposed to incarceration by the state. They are also opposed to state-sanctioned murder (i.e. the death penalty).

This aside, being opposed to incarceration does not necessitate being in support of murder because incarceration isn't the opposite of murder...


No saying abortion is morally wrong expressing your opinion, saying it should be illegal is taking a poltical stance.

Laws are morals legislated into political institutions...

Everything is political. There is no "private opinions." The notion of private vs. public spheres is a liberal philosophical invention.

- August

[Viet Minh]

Like I said I do not have any moral opposition to abortion whatsoever, to me the moral ramifications are no different than masturbation. I just think on certain other issues it is possible to hold one moral opinion and a different idea of it politically. For example i have a personal distaste for smoking, but if I had the option to ban it I wouldn't. Again its a different issue, talking about personal freedoms etc I can accept that.


I'm not particularly interested in debating ethical theories as I've done this enough in the past. But what you describe here as "moral realism" (which is a silly term) is nothing other utilitarian ethics.

I'm not either, I just don't accept the black and white right and wrong view, to me it seems idealist. And most forms of law are to some extent morally relative, ie in many countries of you kill someone in self-defence its viewed differently from murder.

I could be reading you wrong though, its late..


That's not a valid analogy.

Anarchists are opposed to incarceration by the state. They are also opposed to state-sanctioned murder (i.e. the death penalty).


To me that seems a perfect example of contradictory moral and political opinions. In this case its skewed because of the particular system we live under (asusming you're in the west)

Just out of curiosity what alternative are you proposing?


This aside, being opposed to incarceration does not necessitate being in support of murder because incarceration isn't the opposite of murder...

Sex is the opposite of murder, nobody is advocating we have sex with murderers, again I may have missed the point.. :lol:


Laws are morals legislated into political institutions...

Everything is political. There is no "private opinions." The notion of private vs. public spheres is a liberal philosophical invention.

- August

Okay I'll bite, in what way is (for instance) school bullying political? If you morally opposed it then how would you legislate against it?

[GreenCommunism]

I am a diagnosed schizophrenic. By claiming i am a troll on the internet you are effectively discriminating against my identified group of society indirectly whether you know it or not. You are effectively discriminating against me whether the board acknowledge my illness as a legitimate discrimination or not. There is a clear need for clear guidelines when it comes to board policies and part of this would be angry assholes not intervening to distabilize the discussion.

Schizophrenia existed before people invented it this is why a general attitude of tolerance and civil discussion should be enforced whenever politics comes into place, this include against so called racist opponents of your ideas.

i now decide to leave this place, as this website is rotten and simply causes too much psychological trouble for me due to the simple fact of being restricted.

now all you accuse me is avoiding answers and the reason i thanked that post is simple, defying your unjust authority.

[#FF0000]

now all you accuse me is avoiding answers and the reason i thanked that post is simple, defying your unjust authority.

Well that's silly, but you know we would've accepted this answer, right?

"I THANKED IT IRONICALLY, BRO"

I mean come on.

[Milk Sheikh]

Give the guy a break. Why can't moderators be more gentle and understanding? Why this dictatorial attitude?

[RGacky3]

A couple things.

The first is that you cannot "oppose abortion from a moral standpoint" but still be pro-choice. If you are actually saying this is possible, then you are saying that it is entirely acceptable to have completely incoherent and contradictory philosophical positions.
Ex: I oppose murder from a moral standpoint but it's ok to murder in case Z.
In the example above, you have just stated how murder is not to be opposed from a moral standpoint (so long as it's case Z). So you're saying that it's conditionally acceptable, which means you are not holding an absolute moral position vis-a-vis murder.

So you're whole claim that you can oppose abortion but be pro-choice is total nonsense and a poor attempt to circumvent the rules of this board.

The second point is that the rules are plain and simple:


I oppose it morally, and I think its wrong and not acceptable, but unless there is a general consensus on the issue I don't think it should be legislated on, if its not considered a social issue I would'nt call for legislation on it.

I don't think its acceptable at all, but thats my personal viewpoint, and I don't get to set legislation, nor would I set that legislation if I had the power to, considering its not considered a social issue.

I'm not trying to circumvent the rules, if I was trying that I would just lie, I was just asking a question, no need to be a douche.

[GreenCommunism]

i know it's stupid but it'S really what happened, i was just high and i clicked on it .


"I THANKED IT IRONICALLY, BRO"

TOTALLY.

i'm just sick of writing in a different language with different people. aren't you guys all from the cities or so on?

[#FF0000]

i know it's stupid but it'S really what happened, i was just high and i clicked on it .

TOTALLY.

It's not stupid. People really do it all the time.


i'm just sick of writing in a different language with different people. aren't you guys all from the cities or so on?

I live in the woods. A lot of people around here do.

[Milk Sheikh]

It's not stupid. People really do it all the time.



I live in the woods. A lot of people around here do.

What do you mean?:confused:

[#FF0000]

What do you mean?:confused:

1) People "thank" posts that they think are extraordinarily bad to the point that they are unintentionally funny.

2) A lot of people on Revleft live in more rural areas.

[Communist Guy]

Is everyone just simply disregarding my posts :(

[Milk Sheikh]

Is everyone just simply disregarding my posts :(

Moderators have the power, and we all know that power corrupts. They'll make you beg over and over before making a decision; it's one of the ways they can show who the boss is.

[#FF0000]

Moderators have the power, and we all know that power corrupts. They'll make you beg over and over before making a decision; it's one of the ways they can show who the boss is.

dude it's an internet forum.

[Havet]

dude it's an internet forum.

Who would have imagined things would stay more or less the same?!

[Omsk]

God damnit stop talking about that guys!We dont want the moderators to read this!!:( Their revenge will be merciless! :(

[Havet]

God damnit stop talking about that guys!We dont want the moderators to read this!!:( Their revenge will be merciless! :(

Hey, its just an internet forum. What could go wrong?

[Omsk]

They will punish us...Lord Milk Sheik has predicted it all!:(

[Decolonize The Left]

Like I said I do not have any moral opposition to abortion whatsoever, to me the moral ramifications are no different than masturbation. I just think on certain other issues it is possible to hold one moral opinion and a different idea of it politically. For example i have a personal distaste for smoking, but if I had the option to ban it I wouldn't. Again its a different issue, talking about personal freedoms etc I can accept that.

A "distaste for smoking" is not equivalent to being morally opposed to it.

"Personally freedoms" are a bourgeois liberal invention. There is no such thing as "rights" or "freedoms."


Okay I'll bite, in what way is (for instance) school bullying political? If you morally opposed it then how would you legislate against it?

School bullying, when enacted and supported, encourages the 'might makes right' moral principle. It also generally revolves around some form of discrimination, be it against 'nerds,' or 'ugly kids,' or whatever...
Kids don't bully other kids 'just because.' They do it for reasons, reasons which are political in nature though the child may not understand the fully context of their actions.


I oppose it morally, and I think its wrong and not acceptable, but unless there is a general consensus on the issue I don't think it should be legislated on, if its not considered a social issue I would'nt call for legislation on it.

You don't see how this is contradictory?

"I'm morally opposed to it." I.e. I would oppose my girlfriend getting an abortion on moral grounds.
"But it's ok?"

If it's ok, then you're not morally opposed to it.


I don't think its acceptable at all, but thats my personal viewpoint, and I don't get to set legislation, nor would I set that legislation if I had the power to, considering its not considered a social issue.

I'm not trying to circumvent the rules, if I was trying that I would just lie, I was just asking a question, no need to be a douche.

I'm not being a douche. I'm trying to explain to you how backwards your logic is and why it's nonsensical.

If I was trying to be a douche I'd just tell you that your reactionary, patronizing, and totally chauvinistic attitude towards women and their reproductive organs is pathetic and infantile and only serves to reinforce the male-dominated power structures which keep women subservient and a second class.
Not very revolutionary of you is it?

- August

[Sam_b]

Is everyone just simply disregarding my posts

People are disregarding your post because you are disregarding the way in which you 'apply' to be unrestricted. I quoted a pretty damning piece of evidence as to why you were restricted in the first place, and your only reply was 'I've changed my views on that' (admittedly you've now added in one more sentence). This doesn't convince anyone to either take up your case or solidly show why your views have changed in theory or practice. There are, for instance, no links provided as how you have been arguing a pro-choice line while restricted in order to show your change of attitude.

I also don't buy that you somehow didn't remember why you were restricted in the first place. In my opinion it seems a bit disingenuine. But that's only my view, and I really shouldn't be posting in here either as this thread is not for debate.

[Viet Minh]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-cont-t151317/index.html?p=2044159 ;)

[RGacky3]

"I'm morally opposed to it." I.e. I would oppose my girlfriend getting an abortion on moral grounds.
"But it's ok?"

If it's ok, then you're not morally opposed to it.


I did'nt say it was ok, there are a lot of things I don't think are ok but I don't call for legislation against, do you need examples?


If I was trying to be a douche I'd just tell you that your reactionary, patronizing, and totally chauvinistic attitude towards women and their reproductive organs is pathetic and infantile and only serves to reinforce the male-dominated power structures which keep women subservient and a second class.
Not very revolutionary of you is it?


You'd be being a douch, but also entirely wrong and kind of silly.

[GreenCommunism]

1) People "thank" posts that they think are extraordinarily bad to the point that they are unintentionally funny.

2) A lot of people on Revleft live in more rural areas.
i know. dammit.

so will i ever get unrestricted, whats the whole point. i don't even have an ideology anymore. it's more like i want to make my own and i'm scared people will call it fascist, because anything outside the left and the right is fascism. i prefer the radical center.

[khad]

To quote:


So in short, you may post in this thread if your post involves the following:
- Appealing your restriction which has not already been appealed within the past 6 months. This consists of your personal posts which demonstrate a) why your restriction was unjustified and/or b) how you have changed since.
- Requesting clarification for your restriction. This refers to the rules you violated and the evidence against you. You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses, and/or, the responses at hand do not meet the criteria outlined above.

Any other posts made in this thread, including posts made by the member in question upon making the original appeal/clarificatory post (i.e. debate posts), will result in an infraction.This thread has been neglected far too long. Everyone who is flaming, trolling, and debating is getting one infraction.

Off topic posts after this, however, are going to be infracted in the normal way.

[Manic Impressive]

I was restricted for opposing immigration on economic grounds as increasing the labour pool only benefits capitalists and harms those already in a workforce as well as those joining it.

I've been thinking about a point that Psycho made that if the labour pool were to shrink that capitalists would just move jobs to wherever labour is cheaper. I thought this would force the creation of jobs and possibly re-industrialization but I now realize that while that may be possible it would not solve the problem as wages and working conditions would have to decrease in order to compete with cheap imports, meaning that opposing immigration is pointless as we're all fucked either way. But the positive benefits from the mixing of cultures mean that immigration is the better option.

I still don't really understand why it is supported so zealously so if anyone would like to help me try and understand further I would appreciate it.

[MarxSchmarx]

I was restricted for opposing immigration on economic grounds as increasing the labour pool only benefits capitalists and harms those already in a workforce as well as those joining it....

I still don't really understand why it is supported so zealously so if anyone would like to help me try and understand further I would appreciate it.

I don't want to derail this thread but since you are asking why this view is restriction worthy, the short answer is that workers should be able to live and work basically wherever they damn well want to, you have no right telling them they can't live and work in certain places because of basically the accident of their birth.

[Manic Impressive]

Just to be clear it's not that I don't think it's restriction worthy, I was pretty sure I would get restricted when I originally wrote it. I'm just struggling to get my head around why people are so passionate about something which is a part of capitalism and harms the working class:confused:
but thanks for your response

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hey I'm restricted for the exact same thing, except I haven't called for immmigration control/border patrol/deportation or anything along those lines....Just that migrants are getting fucked and their getting fucked also indirectly fucks the workers in the country they moved to, but the issue isn't how we're all getting fucked but the fucker themselves, who is the same class (cappies).

I should be unrestricted.

[Manic Impressive]

Hey I'm restricted for the exact same thing, except I haven't called for immmigration control/border patrol/deportation or anything along those lines....Just that migrants are getting fucked and their getting fucked also indirectly fucks the workers in the country they moved to, but the issue isn't how we're all getting fucked but the fucker themselves, who is the same class (cappies).

I should be unrestricted.
I haven't called for deportation or border patrol. From what I remember you were moaning about "illegal" immigrants being a drain on society which is the opposite of what I said. And I certainly never blamed immigrants not once.

I posted in this thread to say that I had changed my opinion, not to protest the validity of why I was restricted.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I did not intend to suggest that Manic called for anti-immigration measures, though I did so inadvertently.

I should be unrestricted, perhaps the same is true for Manic.

[Hoplite]

I was placed on Restricted status for being a Social Democrat.

I'm contesting it for the simple reason I'm NOT a Social Democrat.

[Havet]

I was placed on Restricted status for being a Social Democrat.

I'm contesting it for the simple reason I'm NOT a Social Democrat.

So what? You were not restricted for being a social democrat. You were restricted for not being a revolutionary leftist.

[Hoplite]

So what? You were not restricted for being a social democrat. You were restricted for not being a revolutionary leftist.
What is that assumption based on?

[Havet]

What is that assumption based on?

The fact that you ARE restricted, and that you affirmed you WERE a social democrat

[Hoplite]

The fact that you ARE restricted, and that you affirmed you WERE a social democrat
I'm sorry but that's circular logic; the justification for my restriction is based on the fact that I'm restricted.

Where did I affirm I was a Social Democrat?

[khad]

It was a combination of things - your defense of cops, your mealy-mouthed language about abortion, and your overall air of sexism. You may not be a social democrat formally defined, but you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't a revolutionary leftist.

Judging from the discussion in the mod forum, you are not going to be unrestricted anytime soon.

Also, infractions to both of you for debating.

[Hoplite]

It was a combination of things - your defense of cops, your mealy-mouthed language about abortion, and your overall air of sexism. You may not be a social democrat formally defined, but you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't a revolutionary leftist.
Can you clarify this, I'm completely confused as to why this all adds up to restricted status.

[khad]

Can you clarify this, I'm completely confused as to why this all adds up to restricted status.

Just one of many questionable positions: http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-accountability-days-t150167/index.html?p=2030465#post2030465

And another: http://www.revleft.com/vb/woman-forced-carry-t151186/index.html?p=2042351#post2042351

I didn't really participate in the discussion, but the mod team did feel that the weight of evidence did warrant a restriction. It's probably not going to get overturned just by asking.

Again, the rules of the thread:


So in short, you may post in this thread if your post involves the following:
- Appealing your restriction which has not already been appealed within the past 6 months. This consists of your personal posts which demonstrate a) why your restriction was unjustified and/or b) how you have changed since.
- Requesting clarification for your restriction. This refers to the rules you violated and the evidence against you. You are entitled to one post unless that post receives no responses, and/or, the responses at hand do not meet the criteria outlined above.

Any other posts made in this thread, including posts made by the member in question upon making the original appeal/clarificatory post (i.e. debate posts), will result in an infraction.

[Hoplite]

Just one of many questionable positions: http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-accountability-days-t150167/index.html?p=2030465#post2030465
I do not understand how that is questionable.


And another: http://www.revleft.com/vb/woman-forced-carry-t151186/index.html?p=2042351#post2042351
Again, can you explain to me why that is questionable.


I didn't really participate in the discussion, but the mod team did feel that the weight of evidence did warrant a restriction. It's probably not going to get overturned just by asking.
Is there a way to get it overturned?


Again, the rules of the thread
I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand why these add up to a restriction.

[Manic Impressive]

I've had a bit of a eureka moment this morning :thumbup:

I think I now fully understand why opposing the free movement of people is reactionary. Opposing it is enforcing a western privilege, like a male privilege or a racial privilege denying opportunities to someone based on being born one side of an imaginary line or the other.

For example when women joined the workforce it expanded the labour pool enabled capitalists to profit from the increased competition for jobs, but someone would have to be absolutely bonkers to oppose it because of that.

[Havet]

I would like to appeal to my restriction. I was restricted for being an objectivist/anarcho-capitalist. I then progressed towards mutualism and anarchism without adjectives. Even though I still hold many anarchism without adjectives principles, I am, in practice, a Cyber Democrat

Cyber Democracy, is a concept that seeks to integrate direct democracy (also known as participatory democracy, as opposed to representative democracy) with mainstream portable technology such as smartphones, cellphones and other easy-to-carry platforms, in an effort to ultimately lead to the abolition of political parties in favor of a renewed direct democracy, which allows each citizen to vote and discuss each matter through the comfort of their portable technologies or even their homes, as opposed to the old fashioned way of having physical meetings (which would still be encouraged!)

I can see how direct democracy is a leftist concept (and, by consequence, so is cyber democracy), although I have my doubts whether it is revolutionary or not. I m divided between my conviction that only a revolution can fundamentally change the current system, and this new idea I've had which can either be implemented gradually (and still bring a revolution, although not in the traditional sense) or imposed upon by the population, if such majority support is gained.

Here is the website where you will be able to read about this, though initially the idea i had was posted here, about a year ago, in revleft.

http://cyberdem.wordpress.com/

I dont intend this to be self-promotion or spam, its just that there are three documents there you can read for free that can explain in more detail how the system would work, if any of the mods are interested in that.

I think that the concept of Cyber Democracy is quite similar to projects such as the Venus Project, or the Zeitgeist movement, even though it approaches the status quo from a different angle, the end result is quite similar. And, by consequence, similar to concepts of socialism and communism, which in turn are considered to be revolutionary leftist.

Anyway, this is a long enough post already, i'll leave it up for the moderators now to decide. If any of the users also support me being unrestricted (though I could think of some who whouldn't!) please voice your support!

Thanks for everyone's time!

[NGNM85]

I was recently restricted for being 'sexist' and 'anti-abortion.' Not only are these charges bogus, but they are based entirely on the extremely biased testimony of one member with a personal vendetta. I have never said anything sexist, or anti-abortion.

[daleckian]

So...I was restricted for being sexist because I said "maybe it was a man's wife?" at the end of a sentence relating to a woman being beaten.

I admit, I didn't add why I said that: maybe she was getting attacked because she cheated on him, or because she lied to him, or some other emotionally charged issue? if I said "maybe it was the woman's husband" would I be restricted?

probably not. eitherway, how does this work?

[Le Libérer]

So...I was restricted for being sexist because I said "maybe it was a man's wife?" at the end of a sentence relating to a woman being beaten.

I admit, I didn't add why I said that: maybe she was getting attacked because she cheated on him, or because she lied to him, or some other emotionally charged issue? if I said "maybe it was the woman's husband" would I be restricted?

probably not. eitherway, how does this work?

No way in hell are you getting unrestricted. Your request is vetoed. I'm one breathe away from banning you. So take it on the chin, and learn how to speak respectfully to women on this board.

[daleckian]

I mean, I'm not saying my restriction is unfair (maybe it's site board policy?) but I'm just confused a bit as to what I said that was really all that bad. I am seriously not understanding it.

in my native country you don't go up to people's affairs and challenge them!