Log in

View Full Version : What constitutes a restriction?



Svoboda
12th September 2010, 18:19
I was recently restricted from posting in any other forum except for this, and I received no warning of this and no message telling me that I was even restricted. I simply attempted to respond to a forum post in which I was previously involved in when I got a message telling me that I could not. From this I'd like to ask what constitutes a restriction?

The RevLeft FAQ states in answer to the question "This person was restricted/banned, why?" this "In the daily happenings at the board, members sometimes make comments that are unacceptable at this site. Comments that are racist, sexist or homophobic for example. This usually will result in a restriction" I have not made such comments. In another question "What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?" it is stated "Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, but that is all that many of us have in common. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive for proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site"

On this I too feel that I should not be restricted, for I am not right wing with anyone I engage in politically I tell them I'm a Libertarian Socialist(which most people tell me is a contradiction), and I have an Anarcho-Capitalist friend who essentially thinks my views are just as bad as any communist. I do want revolution and the "emancipation" of the working class", I simply don't believe it should be achieved through the Marxist fashion. But even so I respect Marx and other communists who I believe have given a terrific critique of the Capitalist system I just disagree on their solution. To classify myself I'd say I'm actually pretty close to being a Mutualist and definitely see myself as being very close in my beliefs with Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker.

So why was I restricted, is it because I'm anti-communist? If so I must say that you don't need to be a communist to hate capitalism or to want the emancipation of the working class. Is it because I believe in markets and respect Adam Smith? To which I will respond that Chomsky himself has given support of markets and Adam Smith himself.

In a further attempt to try and back my case I would like to note the reputation I received, which yes does currently stand at a pathetic 6, but in terms of quantity I have received 18 individual positive reputation points and only 5 individual negative. And some of the negative was just ridiculous, for example I got one for posting an article where I talked of the increased violence for labor unions in Venezuela for "Supporting the Right-wing" when in reality I was trying to prove that Chavez just didn't do shit for the workers, whether you want to believe it or not is irrelevant because I was still clearly expressing my support of the workers as this site advocates in saying that Chavez dosen't really help em.

I got more neg rep when a I said that Chomsky called Adam Smith a libertarian socialist, and the comment said "lol chomsky". I got another one for questioning the power of the private media in comparison to Chavez, I stated in a comment "Great deal of Power?" in reference to the private media to which I got neg rep with a comment saying "great deal of negrep".

In conclusion I'd like to quote my favorite movie Reds, where in the end while arguing with Zinoiev John Reed proclaimed "If destroy dissent you destroy the revolution", and I really believe that, my user title says "skeptic" because that's what I am, I'm constantly trying to question my beliefs, and I feel many people are simply blind dogmatists to their beliefs. People learn something and then blindly believe it and believe that any denial is impossible, this is true for all people in my mind, from communists to capitalists to atheists to Catholics. If you know for certain that Communism is the final end with no doubt in your mind or that god does not exist then to me you are a fool, but if you admit that you might be wrong and if you respect my views I will have unlimited respect for you as well.

Widerstand
12th September 2010, 18:50
You were restricted for breaking board rules and for being a Libertarian, this post was cited as the reason:


I'd say I'm a Left-Libertarian or Libertarian socialist, and I do oppose the idea of corporate media too, but I support markets.

"Libertarian Socialist" is a troubled word. On this website it is often used by Anarchists in it's historical meaning, to emphasize their proximity to Marxist thought, and occassionally by Autonomists, Luxemburgists, Council Communists and such. Personally I identify as a Libertarian Socialist.

However there is also the more modern mainstream definition of "Libertarian Socialism", which is linked to Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) and "Left Libertarianism", both of which are overly capitalist ideologies. Your support of markets and various comments you made would support that you're a (pro-)capitalist. Cappies get restricted on revleft.

Dean
12th September 2010, 18:52
If you demonstrate via your posts that you are a leftist, you'll probably be unrestricted.

Generally, market socialists are hit and miss - but professing "anti-communism" and pro-market ideas off the bat will discourage trust in your leftism.

Svoboda
12th September 2010, 21:05
You were restricted for breaking board rules and for being a Libertarian, this post was cited as the reason:



"Libertarian Socialist" is a troubled word. On this website it is often used by Anarchists in it's historical meaning, to emphasize their proximity to Marxist thought, and occassionally by Autonomists, Luxemburgists, Council Communists and such. Personally I identify as a Libertarian Socialist.

However there is also the more modern mainstream definition of "Libertarian Socialism", which is linked to Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) and "Left Libertarianism", both of which are overly capitalist ideologies. Your support of markets and various comments you made would support that you're a (pro-)capitalist. Cappies get restricted on revleft.
If you read what I said in my original post, you would see how through my citing of the RevLeft FAQ statements that nowhere in it did you have to be a Marixst or couldn't be a Libertarian, you had to be a progressive leftist which I believe I am, and you had to support the emancipation of the working class, which I wholeheartedly do. And just because I'm for markets doesn't mean I'm Capitalist, Kevin Carson is an example of someone who is pro-market but anti-captialist, here's his blog if you want to check him out.
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

Svoboda
12th September 2010, 21:07
If you demonstrate via your posts that you are a leftist, you'll probably be unrestricted.

Generally, market socialists are hit and miss - but professing "anti-communism" and pro-market ideas off the bat will discourage trust in your leftism.
As I said in my original post, why do you have to a communist to support the emancipation of the working class?

#FF0000
12th September 2010, 21:10
Market socialists and market anarchists are restricted. Sorry.

Dimentio
12th September 2010, 21:23
Restriction means that you are ostracised and cast out from the community, to forever sit alone in your chilling dark cabin in bitter loneliness and cry all the night long.

When you try to head down the village again, the inhabitants will attack you with pitch-forks.

Lt. Ferret
13th September 2010, 14:20
Can our leftist ideologies not stand up to criticism?

Sasha
13th September 2010, 14:25
Can our leftist ideologies not stand up to criticism?

oh yeah, forgot about you; restricted

Lt. Ferret
13th September 2010, 14:42
Why on Earth am I restricted?

Sasha
13th September 2010, 14:50
yellow-socialism is for sure corperatist (=restriction) wheter or not its an strain of fascism (=ban) the debate is out.
if you think we are wrong and yellow-socialism is an revolutionary leftist ideology you can make your point in the designated "unfair restrictions" thread in OI.

Dimentio
13th September 2010, 19:34
I've seen a guy who claims himself to be a yellow communist. His main idea is to change human conciousness so capitalists would be nice, and wait for 2012 when Aquarius will begin. :lol:

Bud Struggle
13th September 2010, 20:48
Restriction means that you are ostracised and cast out from the community, to forever sit alone in your chilling dark cabin in bitter loneliness and cry all the night long.

When you try to head down the village again, the inhabitants will attack you with pitch-forks.

True. But you also get to party all of the time, drink all of the beer you want, post pics of hot babes or guys (until Mari3L catches you :( ), tell the honchos around here they don't know what the hell they are talking about and not be obliged to grow a big Stalin/porno mustache.

:lol:

Svoboda
14th September 2010, 00:52
yellow-socialism is for sure corperatist (=restriction) wheter or not its an strain of fascism (=ban) the debate is out.
if you think we are wrong and yellow-socialism is an revolutionary leftist ideology you can make your point in the designated "unfair restrictions" thread in OI.
So essentially the admins define what socialism, the members have no actual say.

Sasha
14th September 2010, 00:57
Yup...

Well actualy we (the mods and admins) get to decide who is NOT an revolutionary leftist. What you want, let people decide themselves and get this place swarmed with strasserists?

Sasha
14th September 2010, 00:58
Yup...

Well actualy we (the mods and admins) get to decide who is NOT an revolutionary leftist. What you want, let people decide themselves and get this place swarmed with strasserists?

F9
14th September 2010, 01:06
psycho, there is something wrong with your reply button :p

Bud Struggle
14th September 2010, 01:07
Yup...

Well actualy we (the mods and admins) get to decide who is NOT an revolutionary leftist. What you want, let people decide themselves and get this place swarmed with strasserists?

And that dear Comardes is called COMMUNISM! And they are being nice now. Wait till the Revolution. :rolleyes:

Just kidding. :)

Svoboda
14th September 2010, 01:15
Yup...

Well actualy we (the mods and admins) get to decide who is NOT an revolutionary leftist. What you want, let people decide themselves and get this place swarmed with strasserists?
Or essentially the elite say what socialism is while the masses and individuals who define themselves as socialist have no actual say.

Widerstand
14th September 2010, 01:18
Or essentially the elite say what socialism is while the masses and individuals who define themselves as socialist have no actual say.

Your understanding of the internet is lacking. The situation on an online forum is by no means comparable to real life communities.

Conquer or Die
14th September 2010, 06:56
Restriction is based on the emotional temperance of the individuals in charge of the powers. There is no concrete definition of what is and what isn't restricted. It's a flawed system directed by flawed and largely hypocritical people.

Now, racist and openly fascist trolls get the ban, just as they would in any forums that is interested in banning trolls with nothing to say. Somehow this is the penultimate justification of them doing useful work; largely they are not, and the website suffers on the whole because of it.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures
14th September 2010, 07:11
Restriction is based on the emotional temperance of the individuals in charge of the powers. There is no concrete definition of what is and what isn't restricted. It's a flawed system directed by flawed and largely hypocritical people.

Now, racist and openly fascist trolls get the ban, just as they would in any forums that is interested in banning trolls with nothing to say. Somehow this is the penultimate justification of them doing useful work; largely they are not, and the website suffers on the whole because of it.

Man, you really know how to hold a grudge don't you?

Conquer or Die
14th September 2010, 07:25
Man, you really know how to hold a grudge don't you?

Why am I banned? What justification? I voiced some opinions in opposing ideologies that were not towing the party line and was axed. I wasn't derailing threads in the history forum saying that the labor theory of value was wrong in a thread about guerrilla actions of the PLA. I wasn't heckling transgendered people because they were transgendered.

This story is recurrent with many other posters. Some people trolled it up and want back in. But those were largely initially justified. However, for the most part, people who simply fall into one category that seems inappropriate based on the aforementioned emotional butthurt of the censorship department are consistently axed. It has nothing to do with continuity, solidarity, or tolerating dissenting opinion. It has everything to do with wielding power on a website. If that seems pathetic and small, it's because it is.

This forum is failing. It is an old bureaucracy. It hasn't learned lessons from the past. It is similar to the popular history of communism.

Believe me, the only reason why I'm here is because another (similar) website is still small and underpopulated. If that one takes off, so will I. I'm here mostly to excise the remaining quality discussions left and let this thing and its bureaucracy die when that last well dries up.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures
14th September 2010, 20:58
Why am I banned? What justification? I voiced some opinions in opposing ideologies that were not towing the party line and was axed. I wasn't derailing threads in the history forum saying that the labor theory of value was wrong in a thread about guerrilla actions of the PLA. I wasn't heckling transgendered people because they were transgendered.

This story is recurrent with many other posters. Some people trolled it up and want back in. But those were largely initially justified. However, for the most part, people who simply fall into one category that seems inappropriate based on the aforementioned emotional butthurt of the censorship department are consistently axed. It has nothing to do with continuity, solidarity, or tolerating dissenting opinion. It has everything to do with wielding power on a website. If that seems pathetic and small, it's because it is.

This forum is failing. It is an old bureaucracy. It hasn't learned lessons from the past. It is similar to the popular history of communism.

Believe me, the only reason why I'm here is because another (similar) website is still small and underpopulated. If that one takes off, so will I. I'm here mostly to excise the remaining quality discussions left and let this thing and its bureaucracy die when that last well dries up.

DOOOOOOOOOOOM. I'm sure revleft is about to collapse, especially from your informed view in the reactionary pen.

F9
15th September 2010, 00:37
Why are we keeping this open?Oh wait, i can close it.

Closed