People getting Offended

[RGacky3]

This kind of goes with the free speach thing.

you don't have a right to not be offended, and you have the right to offend people, this argument that just blatent offending people is not free speach at all, yes it is, you don't get to stop something because if offends you, being offended is part of life, people don't need to apologise if they offend you.

This is also goes with political stuff, when Sarah Paliin was offended that Harry Reid said 'Retarded,' that idiot goes out and starts appologising, the story should be, Sarah Palin gets offended and THATS IT, why should anyone care.

You know if I had a mentally disabled child I'd probably also get offended, but you know what, thats just what happens, I gotta get offended. Tons of stuff on TV offend me, but I just get offended and thats it.

Just a little rant, mainly for middle aged soccor moms that have nothing else to do but get offended.

[Bud Struggle]

Though if you say "retarded" here on RevLeft once too often you get an infraction. A little civility never hurts. :)

[ComradeMan]

What a stupid argument. You don't have the right to offend people and free speech does not mean you can go around saying what you want with impunity.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

to be honest, racists, sexists, homophobics etc think they have 'the right' to offend people. i have a disabled brother, people who are actively offensive to people like him are bellends. he doesn't deserve to be deliberately offended, the same way ethnic minorities or gay people don't deserve to be discriminated against and thus offended.

[nuisance]

The current social organisation structures us into clearly designated confines that regulats our social interactions, leading to highly mediated and conprimising relationships with one another. This had lead to a culture based around pre-emptively controlling our actions, the most insidious form of psuchological social control- based upon Bentham's idea of Panopticon prison.
Being firey and trusting your gut instinct is prided in certain high flying jobs which the employee has the relevant freedom to apply their theories, whereas such innovation in the majority of jobs, both blue and white collar, are deem such behaviour as neglient and strict regulations are put in to deter any individual flare.
Of course we can make a break from this in our personal relations, leading to new fiery interactions, but this will put other peoples noses out of joint. This is not to mean people should go out of their way to insult or offend people, moreso that we should not have to filter our options in fear of upsetting someone, afterall we can be mates with individuals we disagree with, plurality being a great thing. Love is a friendship set on fire.

The potenial is of course there, a concious break from the existent is a necessary task from anyone who claims to have a revolutionary perspective of society.

[Queercommie Girl]

Depends on the specific nature of the "verbal offence" and who you are using it against.

I can be "verbally violent" sometimes, but seriously one who goes around throwing racist, sexist and queerphobic insults at people is just a piece of reactionary shit who deserves to be purged Stalinist-style.

Marxism-Leninism does not believe in "absolute freedom". The ideals of "absolute freedom" are bourgeois in character, not socialist. A capitalist has as much "freedom" to exploit others as the work has in being exploited.

Some people mistake communism for an "all-against-all" anarcho-capitalist style jungle.

[ComradeMan]

Depends on the specific nature of the "verbal offence" and who you are using it against.

I can be "verbally violent" sometimes, but seriously one who goes around throwing racist, sexist and queerphobic insults at people is just a piece of reactionary shit who deserves to be purged Stalinist-style.

Marxism-Leninism does not believe in "absolute freedom". The ideals of "absolute freedom" are bourgeois in character, not socialist. A capitalist has as much "freedom" to exploit others as the work has in being exploited.

Some people mistake communism for an "all-against-all" anarcho-capitalist style jungle.


But your rants against religious people (in the past) and your being offensive are okay?

:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

But your rants against religious people (in the past) and your being offensive are okay?

:rolleyes:

That's OK. Those rants are against people he doen't like so they deserve it. :)

[Queercommie Girl]

But your rants against religious people (in the past) and your being offensive are okay?

:rolleyes:

I don't have a problem with religious people in general, as long as they are not anti-socialist or racist/sexist/queerphobic.

I did attack some people who had borderline queerphobic views here on RevLeft before. E.g. Adi Shankara who quoted directly from a right-wing homophobic Christian website. I certainly don't see a problem with that at all. It's progressive and just to oppose queerphobia.

[Manic Impressive]

I can be "verbally violent" sometimes, but seriously one who goes around throwing racist, sexist and queerphobic insults at people is just a piece of reactionary shit who deserves to be purged Stalinist-style.

You don't see them as being products of their environment? If someone teaches a child to be bigoted does that child deserve to be punished when they are older for their social conditioning which they had no control over?

Surely education is the key instead of mass murder.

@Gacky you're an idiot

[Queercommie Girl]

You don't see them as being products of their environment? If someone teaches a child to be bigoted does that child deserve to be punished when they are older for their social conditioning which they had no control over?

Surely education is the key instead of mass murder.

@Gacky you're an idiot

I was being metaphorical. I didn't literally mean executing people.

It's only "verbal violence" we are talking about here after all. Not real violence.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's OK. Those rants are against people he doen't like so they deserve it. :)

Do you expect me to be "polite" towards "religious people" who are queerphobic? Are you kidding me?

[El Chuncho]

Free speech: freedom to speak the truth, to give opinions, but not to outright lie (like holocaust denial).

[Manic Impressive]

I'm sorry for calling you an idiot Gacky, I hope I didn't offend you. But your post reminds me of a rant against "political correctness" here's a video by comedian Stuart Lee demolishes the anti PC brigades ideas, it might help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo)

[Queercommie Girl]

Free speech: freedom to speak the truth, to give opinions, but not to outright lie (like holocaust denial).

People have no right to give racist/sexist/queerphobic "opinions".

[ComradeMan]

I think Gacky is taking the sort of Chomskian line of no matter how bad we feel something may be someone has the right to say it.

The trouble with the definition of freedom to speak truth- presumably with impunity- is that what happens if a bigot says "I hate black people"- that is the truth, is it not? But is it acceptable? Would that person not be banned here at RevLeft- despite having exercised his or her freedom to speak the truth?

You have to look at the reasons and motives behind using words too.

I would also be cautious with undervaluing the notion of verbal violence. Verbal violence may not inflict physical damage as such but it can and does inflict psychological damage- and that could lead to physical consequences too. I've read stories about poor children who were so tormented at school for being fat, ugly, having glasses etc that they killed themselves. So, it may not be the same but words too can be offensive weapons.

[Sadena Meti]

I think it is important to be offended because it shakes you up. When things are unstable, change is more likely (this applies to the state of society as well as the state of your mind). Shock value can be useful. It also can be gratuitous.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think it is important to be offended because it shakes you up. When things are unstable, change is more likely (this applies to the state of society as well as the state of your mind). Shock value can be useful. It also can be gratuitous.

"Change" in itself has no value, if it's not the right kind of "change".

Communism is not a social order of "maximum chaos".

[bailey_187]

The trouble with the definition of freedom to speak truth- presumably with impunity- is that what happens if a bigot says "I hate black people"- that is the truth, is it not? But is it acceptable? Would that person not be banned here at RevLeft- despite having exercised his or her freedom to speak the truth?

Theres a difference between revleft banning people and, say, the state enforcing what people can say.

Revleft is a private forum for disucssion, and assuming all here are anti-racist, a racist would contribute nothing to our discussion.

[Sadena Meti]

"Change" in itself has no value, if it's not the right kind of "change".

You roll the dice, you don't get the right combination. So you roll it again, keeping the good dice. Haven't you placed Yahtzee?

Also, I believe that instability favor the masses and weakens the existing power structure. Although I just realized this is a long way from the subject of offending people.

[El Chuncho]

People have no right to give racist/sexist/queerphobic "opinions".

My point exactly, I equate their ''opinions'' with lies.

[Queercommie Girl]

Also, I believe that instability favor the masses and weakens the existing power structure.

Strategically, in our capitalist world today, you have some point here.

But "instability" is not what we want in a communist system.

[Sadena Meti]

People have no right to give racist/sexist/queerphobic "opinions".

What if the point is pure shock? To knock the stylus off the record and force a "what the fuck?!" Consider George Carlin (RIP).

[Sadena Meti]

But "instability" is not what we want in a communist system.

Consider the concepts of "instability" and "continuous revolution."

[Queercommie Girl]

Consider the concepts of "instability" and "continuous revolution."

A "continuous revolution" under a dictatorship of the proletariat is fundamentally different from a revolution in a capitalist society. I wouldn't use the term "instability" here.

[Sadena Meti]

A "continuous revolution" under a dictatorship of the proletariat is fundamentally different from a revolution in a capitalist society. I wouldn't use the term "instability" here.
In the continuous revolution things can not be left as they are simply because they are. Therefore every idea and every structure is up for change. I wouldn't call that stability.

[ComradeMan]

In the continuous revolution things can not be left as they are simply because they are. Therefore every idea and every structure is up for change. I wouldn't call that stability.

Stability does not exist- the only constant is change.

[Queercommie Girl]

In the continuous revolution things can not be left as they are simply because they are. Therefore every idea and every structure is up for change. I wouldn't call that stability.

Not really. The basic framework of socialism, of worker's democratic rule, is not up for change. Those who wish to challenge socialism are reactionaries and should be purged, which is the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Under capitalism you want the whole system to be overthrown. So it's not the same kind of thing at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

Stability does not exist- the only constant is change.

Things always change, but human beings are sentient and intelligent, and we can guide the changes in the universe along certain desirable directions. Change is ever-present, but not random.

Human history, in fact, is the dialectical fusion of change and continuity.

[RGacky3]

But your post reminds me of a rant against "political correctness" here's a video by comedian Stuart Lee demolishes the anti PC brigades ideas, it might help you.


Heres the thing, if you say something racist, people can and SHOULD call you racist, and rip into you, but that does'nt mean you should'nt be allowed to be racist, and offensive, sure you do, why not?

the anti-PC brigade wants to have the 'right' to not be called racists or bigots when they clearly are, thats the exact same thing, no if your being racist you get called a racist.

About holocaust denial, yeah, why can't you lie? you have absolutely all the right in the world to lie and deny the holocuast, and everyone else also has the right, and should call you an absolute idiot.

Is Holocaust denial offensive? Absolutely, so what? You know who's offensive to me? Glenn Beck, so what? He still gets to be glenn beck and lie all the time.


People have no right to give racist/sexist/queerphobic "opinions".

Why not?

[Sadena Meti]

Stability does not exist- the only constant is change.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=908&pictureid=7878
The Second Law

We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of chance is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.
Another one of my prison cards. It refers to the second law of thermodynamics.

[RGacky3]

BTW, people who are purposely offensive to people are douch bags, and they should'nt do it because its dickish, but people are ALLOWED to be douch bags.

[Queercommie Girl]

Another one of my prison cards. It refers to the second law of thermodynamics.

Marxism believes humans are unlike other animals precisely because of our labour power, that is, our ability to transform the natural environment around us, "to re-make the world in our image". Humanity is not simply subjugated to the random forces of nature. This is the point of human progress, that we have increasing powers to control the forces of nature in a directional way.

[Queercommie Girl]

BTW, people who are purposely offensive to people are douch bags, and they should'nt do it because its dickish, but people are ALLOWED to be douch bags.

I'm also "allowed" to be rude and even physically assault such "douche bags" in principle.

If you think "freedom is absolute" then in principle "anything goes". Including the right to attempt to limit other people's freedoms. (I might be a "douche bag" for doing this, but as you said I'm allowed to be a "douche bag")

And who exactly is doing the "allowing" here? You are making "freedom" to be a metaphysical principle.

This is partly why I reject anarchism. You wouldn't have this kind of silly arguments with a Leninist DOTP.

[Sadena Meti]

that we have increasing powers to control the forces of nature in a directional way.

No, I disagree. We don't control the forces of nature, we find ways to work with them (and to a limited degree the illusion of them working for us). You can put a waterwheel in a river and generate electricity (or grind a mill stone) but here you are working with the current, not changing it.

The forces of nature win. The laws of nature are immutable. The direction of the universe, on the small scale and the large scale, is entropy.

[RGacky3]

I'm also "allowed" to be rude and even physically assault such "douche bags" in principle.


Not physically assault them .... you can be rude to them back sure, your not violating any of their rights by being rude to them, they can just walk away if they want.


If you think "freedom is absolute" then in principle "anything goes". Including the right to attempt to limit other people's freedoms. (I might be a "douche bag" for doing this, but as you said I'm allowed to be a "douche bag")


No you do'nt have the right to limit other peoples freedoms, but talking is'nt limiting other peoples freedoms.


This is partly why I reject anarchism. You wouldn't have this kind of silly arguments with a Leninist DOTP.

No you would'nt, but what you would have is every dictatorial leninist state thats ever existed.

[Sadena Meti]

No you do'nt have the right to limit other peoples freedoms, but talking is'nt limiting other peoples freedoms.

Two points, one in favor, one opposed.

1. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose beings.

2. The rights of a murderer should be restricted in light of the rights of the murdered.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, I disagree. We don't control the forces of nature, we find ways to work with them (and to a limited degree the illusion of them working for us). You can put a waterwheel in a river and generate electricity (or grind a mill stone) but here you are working with the current, not changing it.

The forces of nature win. The laws of nature are immutable. The direction of the universe, on the small scale and the large scale, is entropy.

Engels seems to disagree with you when he talks about humanity taking control of natural forces in The Dialectics of Nature.

The forces of nature are not a metaphysical god-like entity. Nothing is absolute in the universe. Not even the laws of physics we have so far discovered.

[Queercommie Girl]

No you would'nt, but what you would have is every dictatorial leninist state thats ever existed.


Yeah, of course you would say that.

But frankly which is worse, a Stalinist dictatorship or an anarcho-capitalist social darwinist law of the jungle? Difficult to say really.

[Sadena Meti]

Engels seems to disagree with you when he talks about humanity taking control of natural forces in The Dialectics of Nature.

The forces of nature are not a metaphysical god-like entity. Nothing is absolute in the universe. Not even the laws of physics we have so far discovered.

Engels was not a scientist, and certainly not a modernly trained one.

The laws of physics are not absolute? How about the laws of thermodynamics, gravitational attraction, relativity (general and special), the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, fission, fusion (hot fusion that is), the speed of light, alpha decay, shall I go on?

[Nolan]

Nice liberal argument. It's good to know you put some lofty bourgeois ideal of liberty above even a minority's right to not be harassed racially. Hey, "they're just offended, and that's it," right?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Free Speech is the right to yell 'Theater!' in a crowded fire." -Abbie Hoffman

[Queercommie Girl]

The laws of physics are not absolute? How about the laws of thermodynamics, gravitational attraction, relativity (general and special), the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, fission, fusion (hot fusion that is), the speed of light, alpha decay, shall I go on?

My point is that they are not "absolute" in the sense that you cannot rule out the possibility of humanity one day working around them.

There is no "absolute metaphysical barrier" to human technological progress.

Law of physics should be studied, but never worshipped.

[Sadena Meti]

My point is that they are not "absolute" in the sense that you cannot rule out the possibility of humanity one day working around them.

With them, not around them, with them. Every experiment to date shows that we can work with the laws, not around them. From Newton taking light apart and putting it back together, to the Large Hadron Collider. Working around the laws of physics and nature is the realm of science fiction. Not science fantasy, but science fiction.

[JustMovement]

ugh... i hate this deliberate misunderstanding of the word right in this context. I believe in the right of freedom of speech, this does not mean i literally believe that there is some sort of transcendental god-given platonic right that exists independently of material reality. I doubt even most liberals believe that. I dont know maybe it can be extrapolated from Kant...

So maybe I should say I believe it is mutually beneficial for society in terms of utility to protect the ability of individuals to say what they think, no matter how offensive or wrong this is to wider society, with the exception of direct bullying of individuals.

When you start censoring peoples expression you start a dangerous precedent, and you do not know where that is going to end. Look at the Soviet Union as a case in point, that started out so far ahead of the west in terms of social liberation, and by the 80s it was socially more conservative than many countries in the first world.

[Queercommie Girl]

With them, not around them, with them. Every experiment to date shows that we can work with the laws, not around them. From Newton taking light apart and putting it back together, to the Large Hadron Collider. Working around the laws of physics and nature is the realm of science fiction. Not science fantasy, but science fiction.

Science "facts" tend to change with time.

Newton thought space and time are absolute. Einstein showed that he was wrong. Wormholes are theoretically possible in the Einsteinian universe.

[Sadena Meti]

When you start censoring peoples expression you start a dangerous precedent, and you do not know where that is going to end.

A good point to be made in the Restricted Opposing Ideologies forum.

[Manic Impressive]

Not physically assault them .... you can be rude to them back sure, your not violating any of their rights by being rude to them, they can just walk away if they want.

No you do'nt have the right to limit other peoples freedoms, but talking is'nt limiting other peoples freedoms.
Why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions? I mean if someone offends me and I break their nose is that not my personal freedom to express myself in reaction to what they've said.

As comrademan said words can be weapons too just as much as fists can be, in fact worse because if I punch someone their injury will heal within a week or two. But if I start offending someone really badly and making them feel small and worthless that's going to stay with them and could lead to mental health problems and suicide.

Of course punching people and offending people are both wrong as they infringe the "rights" or "freedom" of the recipient. Basically your right to free speech infringes on my right to feel safe just as a threat of violence would.

[Sadena Meti]

Science "facts" tend to change with time.

Newton thought space and time are absolute. Einstein showed that he was wrong. Wormholes are theoretically possible in the Einsteinian universe.

Wormholes, as strange as they are, work WITH the known rules, if they exist. They don't even defy the laws of entropy, because the matter that passes through them still decays. In fact, the current view is that if such a thing were to happen, a spaceship traveling through a wormhole, it would decay into 100% alpha radiation, completely obliterated.

[Skooma Addict]

"You can say what you want about me, but leave my kids out of this."

She says this so much that I honestly think she is just doing it to score political points with moms. It is so annoying. Every damn interview.

[Queercommie Girl]

Wormholes, as strange as they are, work WITH the known rules, if they exist. They don't even defy the laws of entropy, because the matter that passes through them still decays. In fact, the current view is that if such a thing were to happen, a spaceship traveling through a wormhole, it would decay into 100% alpha radiation, completely obliterated.

This is getting off-topic now. I think we are arguing semantics now to some extent.

I don't believe there is an absolute metaphysical barrier to the potential of technological progress. I do seriously think FTL may one-day be really possible. Though I think the Alcubierre Drive (sometimes known as the "warp drive") is a lot more practical and realistic than wormholes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

But anyway, it's good to see someone knowledgable about science here, despite our philosophical disagreements to some extent.

[Queercommie Girl]

I would also be cautious with undervaluing the notion of verbal violence. Verbal violence may not inflict physical damage as such but it can and does inflict psychological damage- and that could lead to physical consequences too. I've read stories about poor children who were so tormented at school for being fat, ugly, having glasses etc that they killed themselves. So, it may not be the same but words too can be offensive weapons.


My point is that not all "violence" (whether verbal or physical) are equal. Oppressed people using insults and oppressors using insults are two different things, much like how national liberation struggles and imperialist nationalism are different.

[RGacky3]

Nice liberal argument. It's good to know you put some lofty bourgeois ideal of liberty above even a minority's right to not be harassed racially. Hey, "they're just offended, and that's it," right?

What does Liberal even mean??? Its juts a curse word, that you and conservatives throw out.

btw, if minorities havethe right not to be harrassed racially, can they be harrassed some other way?


Why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions? I mean if someone offends me and I break their nose is that not my personal freedom to express myself in reaction to what they've said.

As comrademan said words can be weapons too just as much as fists can be, in fact worse because if I punch someone their injury will heal within a week or two. But if I start offending someone really badly and making them feel small and worthless that's going to stay with them and could lead to mental health problems and suicide.

Of course punching people and offending people are both wrong as they infringe the "rights" or "freedom" of the recipient. Basically your right to free speech infringes on my right to feel safe just as a threat of violence would.

No words are not weapons, and they cannot be under law, so what are you gonna ban hurting peoples feelings?

Yeah, people using words to hurt people are dicks and should be called out as such, but you can't legislate against that and actually have freedom of speach.

Punching people unlike speaking is not a right at all, considering punching someone is ALWAYS an assault.


"You can say what you want about me, but leave my kids out of this."

She says this so much that I honestly think she is just doing it to score political points with moms. It is so annoying. Every damn interview.

Which is bullshit because she uses her kids as political props, as soon as you do that you just made them part of it.


My point is that not all "violence" (whether verbal or physical) are equal. Oppressed people using insults and oppressors using insults are two different things, much like how national liberation struggles and imperialist nationalism are different.

I absolutely agree, for example there is an ocean of a difference between calling a white American a cracker and a black american nigger, they don't even compare.

However, thats not an argument, yes obviously calling someone a nigger hurts a lot more and brings up horrible power injustices and so on. But the problem there is not that someone called someone nigger, which is really just someone being a dick, a racist, or using a cheap shot, the problem is the circumstances that make that insult so hurtful.

[Manic Impressive]

No words are not weapons, and they cannot be under law, so what are you gonna ban hurting peoples feelings?

Yeah, people using words to hurt people are dicks and should be called out as such, but you can't legislate against that and actually have freedom of speach.

Punching people unlike speaking is not a right at all, considering punching someone is ALWAYS an assault.

http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/campaigns-politics/us-shock-over-fifth-teen-homophobic-bullying-suicide/

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/04/20/teens-in-suicide-pact-die-at-slumber-party-bullying-is-cause/

http://msqueer.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/11-year-old-commits-suicide-due-to-bullying-in-school/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2549734/School-bully-is-convicted-of-racial-abuse-Victim-suicidal-in-landmark-case.html

http://www.parentinged.com/bullying/Eating-Disorders-Among-Teenagers-As-A-Result-Of-Girls-Bullying-Each-Other.html

yay for my right to offend anyone I like :thumbdown:

[Sadena Meti]

I do seriously think FTL may one-day be really possible.

Never. Not a single experiment even hints at this possibility. And every experiment confirms the speed of light as an absolute limiter.

When no experiment says YES (or even MAYBE) and every experiment says NO, you can make some very safe assumptions.

(Talking physical experiments here, not purely theoretical ideas.)

We're stuck on this rock.

This is way off topic and should be taken to the Science forum but, well, you know, restricted and all that.

[Revolution starts with U]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Thinking you know what words people have the freedom to speak is the starting point of authoritarianism. So, you either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't. But don't try pulling out some bullshit like "I believe in freedom of speech except for the speech I disagree with." Give me a fucking break :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Thinking you know what words people have the freedom to speak is the starting point of authoritarianism. So, you either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't. But don't try pulling out some bullshit like "I believe in freedom of speech except for the speech I disagree with." Give me a fucking break :rolleyes:

So some people sometime after the Revolution start gathering and saying well we white Blondes are smarter annd better then those Black people. Maybe owning proper isn't all that bad--especially when the property is other people. Lets bring back slavery.

Totallly allowed?

[Revolution starts with U]

In my view, yes. What do you suggest, we shoot them? Put them in prison labor camps?
You will not see me starting a war on speech, that will turn out as bad as the war on drugs. And I think it beyond reactionary to think anybody could fill that task effectively.
You either believe people have a right to speak their mind, and hope you come out on the right side. Or you think you're right, no matter what, and everyone else deserves to rot.

[Ostrinski]

Right. Because in the communist stage of social development, there will be a state to tell people what they can and can't say.

[Bud Struggle]

In my view, yes. What do you suggest, we shoot them? Put them in prison labor camps?
You will not see me starting a war on speech, that will turn out as bad as the war on drugs. And I think it beyond reactionary to think anybody could fill that task effectively.
You either believe people have a right to speak their mind, and hope you come out on the right side. Or you think you're right, no matter what, and everyone else deserves to rot.

Fine! So then we explain the Blacks in our area (freedom of speech) from a young age that they aren't quite human and that maybe they should be slaves of the whites.

[Revolution starts with U]

As long as they have a right to call you a racist twit and laugh you out of town, I don't see that gaining much traction.
See blacks and medieval peasants didn't have freedom of speech. They weren't allowed to learn to read. In a free society, your views won't be able to gain traction, as everyone is free to speak as they see fit.
It doesn't surprise me that the guy who disagrees with us because we're supposedly not free enough for him, doesn't believe in free speech. Big Surprise :rolleyes:! If you only believe in freedom for yourself (and you do Bud, realize it), then you don't believe in freedom at all.

[Bud Struggle]

Good answer. I agree.

[Nolan]

What does Liberal even mean??? Its juts a curse word, that you and conservatives throw out.

Well the irony there is that conservatives are typically liberals or at least economic liberals.

That is a social liberal argument, one which prizes "free speech" above all else. This derives from things like Chomskyism which are little better than social democracy.



btw, if minorities have the right not to be harrassed racially, can they be harrassed some other way?


Like what?

[Zav]

People certainly have the right to say whatever they want, however no one should be verbally abused, discriminated against, hated because of their natural state, or used as the butt of society's jokes. I am offended every time someone makes a snide remark about Jews, gays, blacks, or women, yet I am none of these. I am human before I am any social label.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well the irony there is that conservatives are typically liberals or at least economic liberals.

That is a social liberal argument, one which prizes "free speech" above all else. This derives from things like Chomskyism which are little better than social democracy.




Like what?

You think a society without free speech would tolerate y/our socialist verbosity?
I would say the same things I do now, in said society, but damn if I don't cherish the ability to say them here and not wind up in prison (or worse) because of it.
The foundation of any kind of freedom starts in expression.

[RGacky3]

That is a social liberal argument, one which prizes "free speech" above all else. This derives from things like Chomskyism which are little better than social democracy.


Social-democracy is an economic system, social liberalism is something else, and Chomskyism is something you just made up.


yay for my right to offend anyone I like :thumbdown:

Ok so what are you saying, should we 'ban' being mean?

[Viet Minh]

But your rants against religious people (in the past) and your being offensive are okay?

:rolleyes:

Rants against religious people are not okay, rants against religion itself are.


Free speech: freedom to speak the truth, to give opinions, but not to outright lie (like holocaust denial).

People should be free to vent their nonsense conspiracy theories, even those with a clear racist agenda behind them, because they will be very easily disproved and discredited, furthermore they highlight more about those who make such arguments than the arguments themselves.

The major difference is with media like TV, mainstream newspaper etc there should be censorship on hate speech or inflammatory content.

[Oswy]

Well, if you have a right not to be slapped in the face then you might in equal terms have a right not to be offended. How? From a materialist perspective both instances are physical assaults which routinely generate physiological harm. If it could be demonstrated that an insult or threat routinely caused physiological harm (through the effects of depression or anxiety) as a slap on the face routinely might, then the distinction is problematic.

[RGacky3]

fjIuPSuYSOY

This is basically what I mean.

THe incident they were talking about was Opie and Anthony let a homeless person come in and talk about whatever he wanted to, and he was talking about having sex with Condolisa Rice, Hillary Clinton and some other people (they added the rape part, not the homeless dude).

The best part is when the woman is explaining Patrices offensive joke and the camera guy starts to laugh.

I wish I could find Louis CK explaining it, he does it better than I could.

[Viet Minh]

I agree that banning words and censoring isn't the way to deal with sensitive issues, whats needed is more open discussion, not less. We need to have faith in humanity that people are essentially good and don't need to be told how to think.

One example that possibly backs up this point is the westboro baptist church, their bile and hatred has probably done more to change peoples attitudes towards the queer community than all the postive role models put together, and its the same with other fascist groups. We have nothignt o fear from free speech because bigots have no valid arguments to offer.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am not realky sure what you are trying to say exactly. But personally I am offended by rape jokes. I do not think jokes about something so violent so invasive and so utterly degrading should be made while performing in a job capacity without consequences. What people say in their private lives...well we should not want any control...but trying to make fun of it is minimising its impact, minimising the seriousnes of the crime and creating an atmosphere which is dismissive about the vile nature of it all.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually the only reason when it can be even slightly alright that I can think of is when the joke targets and humiliates rapists and vilifies the act itself.

[RGacky3]

Absolutely, look I'm not saying don't get offended (btw, the comedian also jokes about him not able to get an erection any more, so thats kind of his thing, joking about things that are not really laughing matters), the point is that he has the right to make a joke about anything he wants, if it fails, and/or people get offended, then thats what happens, his job is that of a comedian, his job is to find something that people will find funny, be it offensive or not, and try and do it.

What I'm trying to say if you don't have a right to not be offended, or get your feelings hurt, that happens.

This was mainly about people becoming outraged at comedians and the such, because they said something offensive.

[RGacky3]

Actually the only reason when it can be even slightly alright that I can think of is when the joke targets and humiliates rapists and vilifies the act itself.


Most rape jokes are just taking advantage of the horrible nature of rape. For example.

Whats worse than finding a worm in your apple ..... getting raped.

[Viet Minh]

I am not realky sure what you are trying to say exactly. But personally I am offended by rape jokes. I do not think jokes about something so violent so invasive and so utterly degrading should be made while performing in a job capacity without consequences. What people say in their private lives...well we should not want any control...but trying to make fun of it is minimising its impact, minimising the seriousnes of the crime and creating an atmosphere which is dismissive about the vile nature of it all.

I agree there are some very insensitive 'jokes' around at the moment about the distaster in Japan for example. But its hard to know where to draw the line. I know that Jim Davidson (racist british 'comedian') making jokes about black people is pure racism, wheras Chris Rock in an infamous routine maybe used similar language and steretypes but used them in a social commentary as opposed to the ignorant bullying of davidson, but how do I prove that? Some black people were offended by Chris Rock, some weren't, and while the vast majority of black people find Jim Davidson to be an ignorant fool there's maybe some black guy who thinks Jim Davidson is funny. The answer lies in the fact that not many people go to see Jim Davidson, and many still go to see Chris Rock perform.

[Nolan]

Social-democracy is an economic system, social liberalism is something else, and Chomskyism is something you just made up.


Social democracy is also a political ideal, but I didn't say you were social-democratic.

No, social liberalism describes this argument, "we should have free speech no matter what." That skips all class or materialist analysis in exchange for freedom, which is abstract.

If you recognize that ideologies are products of class interests then it makes little sense to advocate that that runs around unhindered for no reason. I think the point is making it a question of "freedom" is asking the wrong question.

[Sadena Meti]

Actually the only reason when it can be even slightly alright that I can think of is when the joke targets and humiliates rapists and vilifies the act itself.

George Carlin (RIP) once said that even rape can be funny. His example was to imagine Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.


Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny." I say, "fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?" I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See, hey why do you think they call him "Porky," eh? I know what you're going to say. "Elmer was asking for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky. Porky couldn't help himself, he got a hard- on, he got horney, he lost control, he went out of his mind."


...but you can joke about it. I believe you can joke about anything. It all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. What the exaggeration is. Because every joke needs one exaggeration. Every joke needs one thing to be way out of proportion.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Stuff white people like

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

#101 Being Offended (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/)

May 28, 2008 by clander (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/author/clander/)

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/angrywoman.jpg?w=225&h=300 (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/angrywoman.jpg)To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don’t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about “flyover states”). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it’s wrong to use the term “black” instead of “African-American,” they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.
White people also get excited at the opportunity to be offended at things that are sexist and/or homophobic. Both cases offering ample opportunities for lectures, complaints, graduate classes, lengthy discussions and workshops. All of which do an excellent job of raising awareness (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/) among white people who hope to change their status from “not racist” to “super not racist.”
Another thing worth noting is that the threshold for being offended is a very important tool for judging and ranking white people. Missing an opportunity to be outraged is like missing a reference to Derrida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida)-it’s social death.
If you ever need to make a white person feel indebted to you, wait for them to mention a book, film, or television show that features a character who is the same race as you, then say “the representation of <insert race> was offensive and if you can’t see that, well, you need to do some soul searching.” After they return from their hastily booked trip to land of your ancestors, they will be desperate to make it up to you. At this point, it is acceptable to ask them to help you paint your house.

[Delenda Carthago]

A word can be signified in more than one ways. If a Turk says he is anti-Greek, he is a racist. If a Greek says the same thing, he is an anarchist. At the same way, if you are a redneck and call a black person a nigger, you are a racist scum. When I call my half-african hommie the same, he knows I m just playin. Its the (even Left) conservatives that forbid words no matter what. Its not the letters that are something, its the meaning you give to them.

That being said, insulting someone is not a nice thing to beggin with. But is also something that does not take unbreakable laws. Cause that someone can be a cop, a nazi, a politician etc. Who says that its not ok to call them a scum or a bastard or an asshole?

[synthesis]

At the same way, if you are a redneck and call a black person a nigger, you are a racist scum. When I call my half-african hommie the same, he knows I m just playin.

I would also suggest that the word perhaps does not have the same import and historical subtext in Greece as it does here in the States.

[RGacky3]

When I call my half-african hommie the same, he knows I m just playin.

I love this sentance. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

I love this sentance. :laugh:

One thing that being on RevLeft has taught me to do--is to call all working guys "Brother." They all call be "Brother" back. An interesting point is I also call Blacks "Brother" too. Back in the day--the Brothers were the BROTHERS and I definitely wouldn't be consider one of them. Now they call me Brother right back. It's good to see how the country has become more tolerent.

[RGacky3]

If your not using brother to specify a special sort of relationship then its kind of a pointless word.

I personally don't get why a white person would want to call a black person nigger (in a non racist way), just because black people call each other that .... Why? Whats the point?

[Viet Minh]

If your not using brother to specify a special sort of relationship then its kind of a pointless word.

I personally don't get why a white person would want to call a black person nigger (in a non racist way), just because black people call each other that .... Why? Whats the point?

I would never use that word but I used to listen to a lot of hip hop and I know a lot of black people who use it frequently so I've been close to saying it. Some people might use it intentionally cuz its cool, or some might use it without really thinking about its origins. I think the idea that there's a word that only one race can use is stupid, its not the race of the person saying it its the context they use it in. Chris Rock proved that black people can use that word offensively too.

[Queercommie Girl]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Thinking you know what words people have the freedom to speak is the starting point of authoritarianism. So, you either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't. But don't try pulling out some bullshit like "I believe in freedom of speech except for the speech I disagree with." Give me a fucking break :rolleyes:

Marxism doesn't believe in abstract "freedom".

At the most basic level, "freedom" does not transcend class. Should a capitalist have the same kind of "freedom" as a worker? Absolutely not.

And no, I don't believe in the "freedom of speech" in an absolutist abstract sense.

You sound a bit like the neo-con Bush here: "You are either with us or you are against us". The world is not just black and white.

[ComradeMan]

Marxism doesn't believe in abstract "freedom".

At the most basic level, "freedom" does not transcend class. Should a capitalist have the same kind of "freedom" as a worker? Absolutely not.

And no, I don't believe in the "freedom of speech" in an absolutist abstract sense.

You sound a bit like the neo-con Bush here: "You are either with us or you are against us". The world is not just black and white.

Well then define freedom in a material sense, objectively.

[RGacky3]

Should a capitalist have the same kind of "freedom" as a worker? Absolutely not.

And no, I don't believe in the "freedom of speech" in an absolutist abstract sense.


If you get into a position where workers actually have the power to restrict free speach from Capitalists well then they arn't Capitalists anymore are they, so thats a stupid argument.

If your wanting to restrict free speach of certain people, maybe its because your afraid of what they have to say? Don't you have stronger arguments then they do?

[Manic Impressive]

No matter how good your arguments are and no matter how good the education there will always be some nutter with charisma who can convince others that their views are the truth. Especially when a revolution is in it's early stages there must be restrictions on what people can say until the concepts of class, race and gender are eliminated. At the moment these concepts are enforced on society and have been for millennia they won't just vanish over night. There will need to be an enforced change in society to get rid of reactionary views, to think otherwise is just utopian :rolleyes:

[Che a chara]

Advocating this sort of laissez faire attitude towards these “freedoms” is part of what perpetuates the vulgar liberal society we live in. It easily corrupts and divides and distorts class consciousness.

It's not whether we don't have better arguments than them, it's that allowing such hate crime and incitement to violence is counter-revolutionary to the class struggle and the emancipation to live free form fear and intimidation for minorities and the oppressed.

Whose interests does it serve by allowing these so called freedoms ?

[Viet Minh]

Advocating this sort of laissez faire attitude towards these “freedoms” is part of what perpetuates the vulgar liberal society we live in. It easily corrupts and divides and distorts class consciousness.

It's not whether we don't have better arguments than them, it's that allowing such hate crime and incitement to violence is counter-revolutionary to the class struggle and the emancipation to live free form fear and intimidation for minorities and the oppressed.

Whose interests does it serve by allowing these so called freedoms ?

Freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech, any clear incitement of violence towards a minority is and should be illegal. However the problem is we also have an agenda, some might even say violence towards a minority (the police for example) is part of that.

And its all open to interpretation as well, this case illustrates where I think the law goes too far



On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-10)[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-11)[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-12) On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/ASBO)) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-13)

[Che a chara]

Freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech, any clear incitement of violence towards a minority is and should be illegal.

The right to offend and be offended, which the OP was referring to, can be interpreted as being deliberate provocation. The most vocal proponents of such freedoms or allowances would probably be quick to condemn any acts of violence or reaction to the offence/provocation.

Common sense and context should dictate and determine usage.


However the problem is we also have an agenda, some might even say violence towards a minority (the police for example) is part of that.

Are you seriously equating an unaccountable and repressive, armed anti-working class, and pro-private-interest force to an oppressed minority ? :confused: :lol: They hinder the progress of class struggle and serve the interests of the ruling elite. I don't think you'll find many having sympathy with the cops when it comes to acts of aggression or opposition on here.



And its all open to interpretation as well, this case illustrates where I think the law goes too far

I don't know the context of the cartoons or how explicit or offensive they were, but the punishment is OTT. It's another example of religion clouding judgement and having sway over legal matters.

Hostility to organised religion is not offensive, but attacking an individual and their personal belief can be seen as provocation.

[Sadena Meti]

If your not using brother to specify a special sort of relationship then its kind of a pointless word.

I personally don't get why a white person would want to call a black person nigger (in a non racist way), just because black people call each other that .... Why? Whats the point?

A great mind weighed in on this:



There's a different group to get pissed off at you in this country for everything your not supposed to say. Can't say Nigger, Boogie, Jig, Jigaboo, Skinhead, Moolimoolinyon, Schvatzit, Junglebunny. Greaser, Greaseball, Dago, Guinea, Whop, Ginzo, Kike, Zebe, Heed, Yid, Mocky, Himie, Mick, Donkey, Turkey, Limey, Frog. Zip, Zipperhead, Squarehead, Crout, Hiney, Jerry, Hun, Slope, Slopehead, Chink, Gook. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those words in and of themselves. Their only words. It's the context that counts. It's the user. It's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. The words are innocent. I get tired of people talking about bad words and bad language. Bullshit! It's the context that makes them good or bad. The context. That makes them good or bad. For instance, you take the word "Nigger." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole who's using it that you ought to be concerned about. We don't mind when Richard Pryer or Eddie Murphy say it. Why? Because we know they're not racist. Their Niggers! Context. Context. We don't mind their context because we know they're black. Hey, I know I'm whitey, the blue-eyed devil, paddy-o, fay gray boy, honkey, mother-fucker myself. Don't bother my ass. Their only words. You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth, even if it's an unpleasant truth, like the fact that there's a bigot and a racist in every living room on every street corner in this country.

[Sadena Meti]

I personally don't get why a white person would want to call a black person nigger (in a non racist way), just because black people call each other that .... Why? Whats the point?

This is something I ran into a lot in (yes Marl, I'm going to mention it) prison.

Wisconsin is only 6.5% black. But in prison the population is nearly half black (46%). This is an interesting fact which deserves it own thread.

The point is I lived around a lot of brothers. And yes, they called each other niggers all the time. But some non-blacks were also allowed to use. "You're my nigger" was almost universally allowed between acquaintances as a compliment / thanks regardless of race. Also, non-whites (but still non-blacks) often would use the word nigger without repercussions.

But if you are pure white, it's a no go. I once, trying to find the most fitting and hurtful insult for a prisoner who was being buddy-buddy and way too chummy with the guards, I called him a "house nigger." This got me in a lot of trouble with the brothers, though they agreed that this guy was an asshole. There were no repercussions, but I was reminded of my mistake for a few weeks, usually in a lighthearted fashion. I.E. the brothers started addressing me as "Hey my nigger, what's up?" "Hey my nigger, are you going to eat your cornbread?"

I always wonder if he realized that it was the "house" that was the great insult, and "nigger" was included for historical reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_Negro

[Viet Minh]

The right to offend and be offended, which the OP was referring to, can be interpreted as being deliberate provocation. The most vocal proponents of such freedoms or allowances would probably be quick to condemn any acts of violence or reaction to the offence/provocation.

Common sense and context should dictate and determine usage.

But common sense is sadly lacking (especially in the UK lgal system) so we need to be very specific when we advocate restricting people's freedoms in any way, because the state will abuse that power without hesitation.



Are you seriously equating an unaccountable and repressive, armed anti-working class, and pro-private-interest force to an oppressed minority ? :confused: :lol: They hinder the progress of class struggle and serve the interests of the ruling elite. I don't think you'll find many having sympathy with the cops when it comes to acts of aggression or opposition on here.


No of course not, if you knew me you'd know I hate the police as much as anyone. ;) The point I was trying to make although it was a very bad example is that we need to be very careful what we wish for. To you and I its only common sense to say the BNP should not be slandering Islam, and yet by the same token if religions were immune to criticism conservative christians could vocally attack homosexuals.



I don't know the context of the cartoons or how explicit or offensive they were, but the punishment is OTT. It's another example of religion clouding judgement and having sway over legal matters.

Hostility to organised religion is not offensive, but attacking an individual and their personal belief can be seen as provocation.


The act was an offense of sorts, but the punishment was way over the score. I'm guessing that judge had missed some churchgoing that year. :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

No matter how good your arguments are and no matter how good the education there will always be some nutter with charisma who can convince others that their views are the truth. Especially when a revolution is in it's early stages there must be restrictions on what people can say until the concepts of class, race and gender are eliminated. At the moment these concepts are enforced on society and have been for millennia they won't just vanish over night. There will need to be an enforced change in society to get rid of reactionary views, to think otherwise is just utopian :rolleyes:
Who will you appoint to oversee this operation? What will likely happen is this council will, in the name of safeguarding speech, supress any speech critical of it and the status quo. And then instead of punishing capitalists, you punish left commys, anarchists, and other political dissidents.

[Bud Struggle]

This is something I ran into a lot in (yes Marl, I'm going to mention it) prison.

Wisconsin is only 6.5% black. But in prison the population is nearly half black (46%). This is an interesting fact which deserves it own thread.

The point is I lived around a lot of brothers. And yes, they called each other niggers all the time. But some non-blacks were also allowed to use. "You're my nigger" was almost universally allowed between acquaintances as a compliment / thanks regardless of race. Also, non-whites (but still non-blacks) often would use the word nigger without repercussions.


Well that may be just the evolution of the word--it may not just start to refer to Blacks but to people "owned" through some sort of relationship to other people. Nothing wrong with that. It's language reflecting the changing nature of human relationships.

[RGacky3]

But some non-blacks were also allowed to use. "You're my nigger" was almost universally allowed between acquaintances as a compliment / thanks regardless of race. Also, non-whites (but still non-blacks) often would use the word nigger without repercussions.




But why would you want too? You don't have that history, you don't have that context, why the hell would you WANT to say that?

[Lt. Ferret]

whats this fucking garbage that you cant say offensive things? let the racists and homophobes rant all they want, they make themselves look foolish. cram censorship up your ass, unless its more of a case of yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre, and even that is a pragmatic step, not an ideological one.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well then define freedom in a material sense, objectively.

"Freedom" is based on class. Capitalism sells you the idea that everyone is intrinsically free, but with the kind of economic and social inequality that exists under capitalism, in reality "freedom" only exists for a very small proportion of the population.

People will only have genuine freedom when they can guarantee that the political and economic power of society is always in the hands of the working people in general, rather than just in the hands of a few super-rich capitalists.

Without economic and social equality, there is no "freedom".

[Lt. Ferret]

nobody has any obligation to give a fuck about your feelings.

[Queercommie Girl]

If you get into a position where workers actually have the power to restrict free speach from Capitalists well then they arn't Capitalists anymore are they, so thats a stupid argument.


Oh really? Then you must have never heard of the term "counter-revolution"?

You think a "perfect" and "absolute" communism can just be achieved in one day?



If your wanting to restrict free speach of certain people, maybe its because your afraid of what they have to say? Don't you have stronger arguments then they do?


This isn't about whose arguments are "stronger" in the abstract sense. In case you haven't noticed, we still live in a class society, and in any kind of class society, "truth" and "reason" are generally distorted. Certain things prevail in our mainstream culture today not because they are "right" or they are better than the alternatives, but because it is in the interest of the capitalist ruling elites to allow things to be in such a way.

And I don't have the duty to be constantly on guard to defend myself against hostile people just because I happen to be an ethnic minority, woman or queer etc. Maybe anarchists don't appreciate this, I don't know, but one of the goals of communism is to put an end to the "dog-eat-dog" social darwinist society that is ruled by the "law of the jungle" we have now so that all workers can enjoy peace and prosperity without the threat of constant harassment.

[Queercommie Girl]

nobody has any obligation to give a fuck about your feelings.

Are you talking to me?

I don't give a shit about what an anti-socialist has to say about anything, really.

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah, i am talking to you, you crybaby douchebag authoritarian.

[Queercommie Girl]

yeah, i am talking to you, you crybaby douchebag authoritarian.


Yeah, and your personal insults really make a lot of sense, after I merely pointed out that the so-called "freedom" that capitalists like to brag on about is fundamentally based on economic class. :rolleyes:

What is a yellow socialist and a member of a reactionary supporter of an institution like the US army doing here anyway? Don't you consider this forum to be a waste of your time or something?

You may have time to waste, but I don't, so either contribute something constructive in this thread or just shut the fuck up.

[Lt. Ferret]

I could say anything I wanted when I was poor, and I can do it now that I'm middle class. What are they saying that we're not allowed to?

You and scum like you are the reason that so many people reject communism in how it's thought about in western society. They don't want to hear shit about how censorship kicks ass. And it doesn't really matter if youre a fat brown gay person, you're still just an asshole trying to tell people what to say.

[Queercommie Girl]

I could say anything I wanted when I was poor, and I can do it now that I'm middle class. What are they saying that we're not allowed to?


Yeah, you can "say" whatever you like, but since when did pure words have much bearing on reality? It doesn't change the fact that in capitalism, all real power is in the hands of the ruling elites.



You and scum like you are the reason that so many people reject communism in how it's thought about in western society. They don't want to hear shit about how censorship kicks ass. And it doesn't really matter if youre a fat brown gay person, you're still just an asshole trying to tell people what to say.I don't support general censorship, I'm merely pointing out that "freedom of speech" is never an absolutist "black-and-white" "you are either with us or you are against us" thing.

I only oppose hate speech such as racist, sexist and queerphobic insults. I mean, even the capitalist United States today generally does not allow hate speech. Do you propose that we go back to the feudal era where there is no protection for the rights of minorities at all, and where "might equals right" and everyone must fend for himself/herself with his/her sword and shield? :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

No, but I oppose someone being thrown in prison for saying fag or honky or *****. I think polite society is generally progressing and erasing those things, even if its a gradual process.

[Delenda Carthago]

I would also suggest that the word perhaps does not have the same import and historical subtext in Greece as it does here in the States.
Exactly. This is what I m sayin. Its not the word by itself, its the whole frame that is being put in.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, but I oppose someone being thrown in prison for saying fag or honky or *****. I think polite society is generally progressing and erasing those things, even if its a gradual process.

I didn't say a literal prison sentence for a relatively minor racist remark either, that would be an example of over-sentencing.

But I don't think hate speech is "trivial" either. For one thing, hate speech can lead to hate crimes, and both hate speech and hate crimes are things which progressive people like Martin Luther King have fought against for all of his life.

Even if you dislike "commies", surely you at least appreciate the progressive work of Dr. King?

[Lt. Ferret]

I do, and I don't dislike most commies. I dislike people with a fetish for authoritarianism who hide behind ideologies.

[Queercommie Girl]

I do, and I don't dislike most commies. I dislike people with a fetish for authoritarianism who hide behind ideologies.

Yeah, so stop insulting me, since I'm not an authoritarian. I support worker's democracy.

[Ele'ill]

I dislike people with a fetish for authoritarianism who hide behind ideologies.


Like the military industrial complex- to which you serve loyally.

[gorillafuck]

What a stupid argument. You don't have the right to offend people and free speech does not mean you can go around saying what you want with impunity.Actually it does. But pretty much nobody supports 100% free speech.

[ComradeMan]

Actually it does. But pretty much nobody supports 100% free speech.

Fuck you then! ;) :lol:

It doesn't.

[Ocean Seal]

This kind of goes with the free speach thing.

you don't have a right to not be offended, and you have the right to offend people, this argument that just blatent offending people is not free speach at all, yes it is, you don't get to stop something because if offends you, being offended is part of life, people don't need to apologise if they offend you.

This is also goes with political stuff, when Sarah Paliin was offended that Harry Reid said 'Retarded,' that idiot goes out and starts appologising, the story should be, Sarah Palin gets offended and THATS IT, why should anyone care.

You know if I had a mentally disabled child I'd probably also get offended, but you know what, thats just what happens, I gotta get offended. Tons of stuff on TV offend me, but I just get offended and thats it.

Just a little rant, mainly for middle aged soccor moms that have nothing else to do but get offended.
3cLxQ4B23_g
Fighting political correctness...

Harry Reid is indeed entitled by his freedom of speech to say the word "retarded," but I would think that a society that would not condemn politicians for using such derogatory language is probably somewhere I don't want to live. There is an argument for political correctness. While we may all have opinions, and have the right to express them that doesn't mean that those opinions are necessarily tolerable. If Harry Reid did not go around apologizing that would mean that language which offends a minority at a disadvantage was acceptable for even those who have to maintain an air of prestige and therefore acceptable for everyone. Thus it would foster a culture where discrimination is in fact okay. Open discrimination is always worse than closet discrimination.

[synthesis]

One thing that really annoys me is the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument. If you believe in "free speech" as a principle, what you yell and where shouldn't make a difference. You either need to let people yell fire in a crowded theater or you need to acknowledge that there is no real distinction between "speech" and "action" and that both have consequences for which one must be responsible.

[gorillafuck]

Fuck you then! ;) :lol:

It doesn't.Yes it does. How does it not?

If one country legally allows people to say anything they want with impunity and one does not, the first one clearly has more freedom of speech.

[Sadena Meti]

Talking about absolute freedom of speech, saying anything to anyone without consequence...


What are your opinions about Sedition, both pre- and post-revolution?


I have some experience with this. I was indicted for sedition in 2007, but the charge was dropped for lack of evidence (search warrant for seizing my computers was ruled illegal).

You know quite frankly, a good prosecutor could cull through the thousands of posts on RevLeft and come up with quite a few cases of sedition. Then get a warrant for IPs.

[RGacky3]

Oh really? Then you must have never heard of the term "counter-revolution"?

You think a "perfect" and "absolute" communism can just be achieved in one day?


Yeah I heard of it, it was when the whites tried to attack and undo the Bolshevik revolution.

And the Bolsheviks used it as an excuse to murder any and all political opposition.

You'll never achieve any socialism if your doing it by destroying fundemental rights which democracy and thus socialism are based on.


This isn't about whose arguments are "stronger" in the abstract sense. In case you haven't noticed, we still live in a class society, and in any kind of class society, "truth" and "reason" are generally distorted. Certain things prevail in our mainstream culture today not because they are "right" or they are better than the alternatives, but because it is in the interest of the capitalist ruling elites to allow things to be in such a way.

And I don't have the duty to be constantly on guard to defend myself against hostile people just because I happen to be an ethnic minority, woman or queer etc. Maybe anarchists don't appreciate this, I don't know, but one of the goals of communism is to put an end to the "dog-eat-dog" social darwinist society that is ruled by the "law of the jungle" we have now so that all workers can enjoy peace and prosperity without the threat of constant harassment.

Ok .... But then why does that neccessitate restricting speach?


If Harry Reid did not go around apologizing that would mean that language which offends a minority at a disadvantage was acceptable for even those who have to maintain an air of prestige and therefore acceptable for everyone. Thus it would foster a culture where discrimination is in fact okay. Open discrimination is always worse than closet discrimination.

Harry Reid calling progressives retarded was not discriminating against mentally damaged people.


Fuck you then! ;) :lol:

It doesn't.

Thats the whole point of free speach, you CAN say anything without legal consequences.


What are your opinions about Sedition, both pre- and post-revolution?


Should be no such thing, no entity has the right to demand loyalty.

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah I heard of it, it was when the whites tried to attack and undo the Bolshevik revolution.

And the Bolsheviks used it as an excuse to murder any and all political opposition.

Have you never heard of the Spanish civil war?

[RGacky3]

I have, and people got killed, its a war, but it was'nt stopping freedom of speach, I'm pretty sure you were allowed to say something was retarded.

[ComradeMan]

Yes it does. How does it not?

If one country legally allows people to say anything they want with impunity and one does not, the first one clearly has more freedom of speech.

Where is this country? The country with no slander or libel laws I presume.

[Revolution starts with U]

Plain and simply there is no good way to restrict speech without putting too much power in the hands of one class. The foundation of a free society starts in speech, and putting someone in charge of that, puts them in charge of the whole society.
Being against free speech (other than just for restricting it in certain ways like "fire" in a theater, tho I have other problems with those actions) is basically just saying "I'm right, no matter what the evidence could or could not say. And anyone who disagrees can just diaf."

[gorillafuck]

I have, and people got killed, its a war, but it was'nt stopping freedom of speach, I'm pretty sure you were allowed to say something was retarded.No, anarchists in Spain definitely did not respect the "free speech" of nationalists.

[gorillafuck]

Where is this country? The country with no slander or libel laws I presume.It's a hypothetical situation. But whether there's a country like that exists is entirely irrelevant to the argument. It's still true. If in one country you could say anything you want and in one you can't, there is more free speech in the first.

People that claim otherwise generally do so because they don't want to admit that they don't support total freedom of speech.

[RGacky3]

No, anarchists in Spain definitely did not respect the "free speech" of nationalists.

You do realize there was a civil war, so chances are if there were nationalists in the anarchist areas, they were working for the nationalists, and thus killed.

But show me where they actually instituted restrictions on speach?

[Queercommie Girl]

is basically just saying "I'm right, no matter what the evidence could or could not say. And anyone who disagrees can just diaf."


Well, I would say this would apply to racist, sexist and queerphobic speech.

If scientific evidence actually shows that one race is less intelligent than another, does this mean racist remarks are objectively justified? This is what someone on Stormfront would argue for.

I don't believe in restricting freedom of speech in general, I just oppose hate speech against minority and disadvantaged groups, as well as explicit anti-socialist propaganda.

If one individual says a few anti-socialist things it might be ok, but one cannot allow such people to form an actual group and start actively broadcasting reactionary propaganda. That counts as counter-revolutionary action and should be dealt with.

[RGacky3]

If one individual says a few anti-socialist things it might be ok, but one cannot allow such people to form an actual group and start actively broadcasting reactionary propaganda. That counts as counter-revolutionary action and should be dealt with.

If someone actually managest to get enough people on his side to make a difference, and your arguments against him don't work ... maybe he has a point.


I don't believe in restricting freedom of speech in general, I just oppose hate speech against minority and disadvantaged groups, as well as explicit anti-socialist propaganda.


I oppose it too, but thats not my buisiness what they say.

[gorillafuck]

But show me where they actually instituted restrictions on speach?They didn't allow any fascist speech anywhere. Whether restrictions are in some sort of anarchist constitution or not is irrelevant.

[Queercommie Girl]

If someone actually managest to get enough people on his side to make a difference, and your arguments against him don't work ... maybe he has a point.


Not when the said arguments are actually anti-socialist in character. Leninism believes defending the worker's state at all costs, even if it violates your "noble conceptions of truth".

Abstract "truth" doesn't exist. I'm a pragmatic utilitarian. "Truth" is not Platonic but utilitarian in character. If something is useful for the socialist system, then it must be "true".

Also, in the capitalist world today, there are many powerful reactionary institutions of all types. Does this mean reactionary ideology "has a point"?

Whether something is "true" or not is not determined by how powerful or popular it is. Sometimes the "truth" is held in the hands of the relative minority, like a vanguardist party.



I oppose it too, but thats not my buisiness what they say.


You are just a relatively privileged white heterosexual male who doesn't know what it's like to be a disadvantaged minority. You don't realise that hate speech is not just trivial, but actually linked to real physical hate crimes in an intrinsic sense.

Even in capitalism today many forms of hate speech are not allowed. You want us to go back to the primitive days of feudalism where every person must defend himself/herself with sword and shield.

[RGacky3]

Leninism believes defending the worker's state at all costs, even if it violates your "noble conceptions of truth".

Abstract "truth" doesn't exist. I'm a pragmatic utilitarian. If something is useful for the socialist system, then it must be "true".

Also, in the capitalist world today, there are many powerful reactionary institutions of all types. Does this mean reactionary ideology "has a point"?

Whether something is "true" or not is not determined by how powerful or popular it is. Sometimes the "truth" is held in the hands of the relative minority, like a vanguardist party.


Why the hell are you talking about "truth."

Also if to defend the "workers state" you make it not a workers state, then again, whats the point?

If by "defending the socialist system" you undo the socialist system, then screw it, let it go.

btw, that last sentance is stupid, if you can't see why I'll explain it.

[RGacky3]

You are just a relatively privileged white heterosexual male who doesn't know what it's like to be a disadvantaged minority.


You don't know shit about me, so don't go there.


You don't realise that hate speech is not just trivial, but actually linked to real physical hate crimes in an intrinsic sense.

yeah sure it is, but the crime is the physical hate crime, not the speech, you know nagging is alos linked to physical crime, should we ban nagging?

[ComradeMan]

Not when the said arguments are actually anti-socialist in character. Leninism believes defending the worker's state at all costs, even if it violates your "noble conceptions of truth"..

And Leninism, of course, has the last word on the matter....


If something is useful for the socialist system, then it must be "true"."..

You are scary. That's such a failure of logic. If something is useful for the socialist system then it is... useful for the socialist systerm- it does not mean it is true- :confused: x = y = z? :rolleyes:


Sometimes the "truth" is held in the hands of the relative minority, like a vanguardist party..

More elitist and authoritarian bullshit. Ironically you sound like the medieval church.


You are just a relatively privileged white heterosexual male who doesn't know what it's like to be a disadvantaged minority. You don't realise that hate speech is not just trivial, but actually linked to real physical hate crimes in an intrinsic sense...

Apart from the fact that this is a circumstancial ad hominem that could be thrown at a lot of revolutionaries of note, what gives you the right to make such a prejudiced and bigotted statement? What do you know about Gacky and his experience? You are attacking someone you barely know for who they are and if someone did that to you you would probably the first to start squealing about prejudice. What's the matter? Do you have an issue with white hetero males?


Even in capitalism today many forms of hate speech are not allowed. You want us to go back to the primitive days of feudalism where every person must defend himself/herself with sword and shield.

So there were no courts and magistrates during the feudal period? :rolleyes: Even if their idea of justice was not exactly ours...

[Queercommie Girl]

And Leninism, of course, has the last word on the matter....


Leninism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anarchism or some other ultra-leftist BS.



You are scary. That's such a failure of logic. If something is useful for the socialist system then it is... useful for the socialist systerm- it does not mean it is true- :confused: x = y = z? :rolleyes:
You can go and continue to care about your "abstract logic", I will continue to put defending the worker's state my top priority.

Basically you put "abstract logic" before concrete human welfare, which is ironic coming from someone who is supposedly anti-technocratic, since such attitudes is indeed one potential problem of a technocratic system.

If I have to choose between upholding abstract mathematical truth or saving an innocent person's life, I'd much rather save the innocent person's life, even when it is "irrational" to do so. (Hypothetically)



More elitist and authoritarian bullshit. Ironically you sound like the medieval church.
If you want to equate Leninist vanguardism with the medieval church or with elitist authoritarianism, then you can do so. Doesn't mean you are right at all though.

I mean today socialists and especially revolutionary socialists are a small minority in society in general, so judging by the criteria of "power" and "popularity", it must be that capitalism or liberal reformism is generally correct and Marxism is generally wrong, since so few people actually believe in Marxism.

Marxists are a small minority in the world. So unless you think this "small minority" have got many things right where the "vast majority" have got wrong - which implies that this "small minority" is a vanguard of some kind, Marxism must be itself a mistake. Even among the poorer layers of the working class the majority do not follow Marxism.



Apart from the fact that this is a circumstancial ad hominem that could be thrown at a lot of revolutionaries of note, what gives you the right to make such a prejudiced and bigotted statement? What do you know about Gacky and his experience? You are attacking someone you barely know for who they are and if someone did that to you you would probably the first to start squealing about prejudice. What's the matter? Do you have an issue with white hetero males?
He speaks as if hate speech against disadvantaged minorities is just a trivial matter. He puts his petit-bourgeois notion of absolute freedom before the concrete rights of minorities. I inferred from this fact that he is not from a disadvantaged minority himself. It is certainly not an ad hominem.

I don't have a problem with white hetero males in general, I do however have a problem with them if they are chavs who are insensitive about the issues of disadvantaged minority groups and keep on promoting their "manarchist" macho BS.

Look at your own use of words for instance. You said I would be "squealing about injustice". This very use of word shows your macho bias - the implication is that explicitly complaining about injustice is a form of "whining", and not something a self-respecting tough "manly man" would ever do. People should just toughen up when discriminated against by others, rather than complaining or "whining" about it, right?

Well, I'm a trans-woman and I'm not a particularly "tough" or "strong" person, and frankly I don't wish to become one. So when I see a problem, I just complain about. Call it "whining" or "squealing" if you want, but the idea that only "tough" and "macho" people can be genuine revolutionary socialists is completely ridiculous.

Besides, even the anarchist RGacky3 here would agree with me that "racism" and "reverse racism" are not equivalent to each other - a white man calling a black man "nigger" is not the same as a black man calling a white man "cracker", due to the fundamental inequality between whites and blacks in the world today.

Another thing: it's funny that you constantly accuse me for "whining" or "squealing" but actually you are the one who is posting in thread after thread how I've been rude to you, whereas I have done no such thing. Talk about hypocrisy.



So there were no courts and magistrates during the feudal period? :rolleyes: Even if their idea of justice was not exactly ours...There were courts in the feudal era, but in most forms of feudalism there was no systematic legal protection of minority groups or any form of affirmative action policies. On the contrary, minority groups were generally systematically discriminated against, e.g. Jews in medieval Europe.

BTW, I thought you are actually against the idea of "absolute freedom of speech" which includes hate speech against other people, as seen by your earlier posts in this thread. Changed your mind now?

[Queercommie Girl]

Also if to defend the "workers state" you make it not a workers state, then again, whats the point?

If by "defending the socialist system" you undo the socialist system, then screw it, let it go.


So actively preventing reactionaries from broadcasting their propaganda is anti-socialist or anti-worker's state?

You seem to think that the whole point of communism is just to return humanity to how it was in the primitive tribal era, before class society arose, when humans were just "free" and subject to nothing else except "pure free competition" in some kind of Hobbesian sense.

But communism isn't a return to such a kind of primitive tribalism in a social sense. To use a simple analogy, suppose there is bullying in a high school, you would probably want to see the bullied kids "toughen up" and fight back against the bullies themselves, whereas I would say the teachers should actually actively intervene.

Communism is not a social darwinist jungle based on the law of "the survival of the strongest". Of course you are just talking about verbal freedom here, you certainly are not promoting the idea that people are free to do whatever they like in a literal physical sense, e.g. physically attacking other people. This is good, but you don't seem to realise that the two, verbal and physical, are intrinsically linked. And even in a society of complete verbal freedom, some people would be disadvantaged simply because they are "verbally weaker" than others. I believe in affirmative action and some degree of "positive discrimination" for those who are disadvantaged, rather than just a system of "purely free competition".

Wild animals have no class society, but communism isn't about returning humanity to the social state akin to that of wild animals in a jungle. This is what is meant by rejecting "social darwinism". You see my point?

I happen to have a relatively tough mouth (as some people have already noticed on this forum), but what about those who find it difficult to "fight back verbally" against those who verbally attacks them? As Manic said even non-physical verbal abuses can cause some problems for people too, even if it's certainly not as serious as literal physical abuse.



btw, that last sentance is stupid, if you can't see why I'll explain it.

Well, you are an anarchist while I am a Leninist, so I think we will just debate around this issue to no avail.

[Queercommie Girl]

You don't know shit about me, so don't go there.


I made an inference based on your attitude in this thread. I don't know you personally since this is just an internet forum so objectively I could be wrong about your specific personal background, but it was certainly not a form of ad hominem.



yeah sure it is, but the crime is the physical hate crime, not the speech, you know nagging is alos linked to physical crime, should we ban nagging?

You are trivalising hate speech against minority groups such as racism, sexism and queerphobia by comparing them with "nagging". You don't realise the seriousness of discrimination against minority groups.

You think promoting "absolute freedom of speech" is a socialist task, whereas for me defending the rights of minorities against discrimination and prejudice is a higher priority for socialists.

I mean, your position regarding this particular issue is worse than that of reformist socialists such as Dr. Martin Luther King, who based his life's work on defending and fighting for minority rights.

[RGacky3]

I made an inference based on your attitude in this thread.

Which is pretty fucking stupid.


You are trivalising hate speech against minority groups such as racism, sexism and queerphobia by comparing them with "nagging". You don't realise the seriousness of discrimination against minority groups.

You think promoting "absolute freedom of speech" is a socialist task, whereas for me defending the rights of minorities against discrimination and prejudice is a higher priority for socialists.

I think BOTH are a socialist task, you defend the rights of minorities and defend free speach.

I'm not trivializing hate speech, I'm trivializing your argument that it should be banned.


So actively preventing reactionaries from broadcasting their propaganda is anti-socialist or anti-worker's state?


yes, because your essencially getting rid of the necessary fundemental of democracy, which is a necessary fundemental of socialism.


You seem to think that the whole point of communism is just to return humanity to how it was in the primitive tribal era, before class society arose, when humans were just "free" and subject to nothing else except "pure free competition" in some kind of Hobbesian sense.


That primitive tribal era was not free competition many societies were democratic.

I don't know what your talking about, pure free competition, when it comes to ideas ... yeah.


Of course you are just talking about verbal freedom here, you certainly are not promoting the idea that people are free to do whatever they like in a literal physical sense, e.g. physically attacking other people.

I'm just talking about about verbal freedom, physically attacking people is something totally else.


I happen to have a relatively tough mouth (as some people have already noticed on this forum), but what about those who find it difficult to "fight back verbally" against those who verbally attacks them? As Manic said even non-physical verbal abuses can cause some problems for people too, even if it's certainly not as serious as literal physical abuse.


Well then they find it tough, why is that something that should be legislated?


Well, you are an anarchist while I am a Leninist, so I think we will just debate around this issue to no avail.

But we both are socialists.

[Queercommie Girl]

Which is pretty fucking stupid.

I think BOTH are a socialist task, you defend the rights of minorities and defend free speach.

I'm not trivializing hate speech, I'm trivializing your argument that it should be banned.


Well, you haven't demonstrated so far that you really care about minority rights.

It depends on what exactly you mean by "banned". I'm not saying we just give out prison sentences for everyone who makes a relatively minor racist remark or something, but people must realise that such discriminatory remarks are not just "all right" and something everyone can freely say in a "free society", society and the public in general should certainly rebuke such racist bigots, even if there is no systematic punishment for their words.

But of course if it's an actual group or social organisation that is based on racist ideologies, rather than just a single racist individual, like the KKK for example, then it's a completely different matter. Yes I do strongly believe organisations like the KKK or neo-fascist groups should be banned. Freedom of speech is never completely absolute. It is context-dependent, and there is a limit to it.



yes, because your essencially getting rid of the necessary fundemental of democracy, which is a necessary fundemental of socialism.


Democracy requires freedom of speech in general, not allowing hate speech against minority groups.

Why don't you actually demonstrate how is it that not allowing hate speech would undermine mass democracy?

You think in such absolutist "black-and-white" terms.



That primitive tribal era was not free competition many societies were democratic.

I don't know what your talking about, pure free competition, when it comes to ideas ... yeah.


Communism is not a return in the social sense to the primitive tribal era.

And you cannot mechanically and absolutely separate "competition in the realm of ideas" and "competition in concrete reality". It's almost as if you believe in some kind of "quasi-Platonic" realm of "pure ideas", completely independent from concrete social reality.



I'm just talking about about verbal freedom, physically attacking people is something totally else.


The two cannot be completely separated in the concrete sense. The one is related to the other.



Well then they find it tough, why is that something that should be legislated?


So that those who are not as good at throwing around personal insults as other people are not disadvantaged in any social sense.

Even if as an anarchist you do not believe in state intervention, the local community should still intervene and offer help to such individuals, like how the "local anarchist militias" can potentially prevent physical crimes in the local community without a standing army or police force in the Leninist Soviet sense.

Maybe I haven't heard you correctly, but you just sound like such people should just be left to "fend for themselves". Even without any formal legislation, the democratic local community should still offer help to such individuals.

I mean it's almost like you are saying that if you see one person bullying another, rather than criticising the bully, you would rather criticise the bullied person for "not being tough enough"...



But we both are socialists.

Yes and I'm not really an anti-anarchist, though I am certainly not an anarchist either, and I find the hooligan-like political methods of some anarchists (certainly not all) and their cultural adherence to a kind of "manarchism" not conducive at all to real serious worker's activism and movement. And I always stick to my political principles and point out what I think are errors when I see them. Nothing personal.

[RGacky3]

Well, you haven't demonstrated so far that you really care about minority rights.


Where have I said that? Is it a RIGHT for someone to not say bad stuff about you?


but people must realise that such discriminatory remarks are not just "all right" and something everyone can freely say in a "free society", society and the public in general should certainly rebuke such racist bigots, even if there is no systematic punishment for their words.


Sure ....


But of course if it's an actual group or social organisation that is based on racist ideologies, rather than just a single racist individual, like the KKK for example, then it's a completely different matter. Yes I do strongly believe organisations like the KKK or neo-fascist groups should be banned. Freedom of speech is never completely absolute. It is context-dependent, and there is a limit to it.


Why should the KKK be banned? I'm pretty sure looking around they lost the free speach debate, whreas in Germany where neo-nazis are banned ......

Why should they be banned, are you THAT scared of their ideas that you can't refute them?


The two cannot be completely separated in the concrete sense. The one is related to the other.


Yes you can separate them, the same way you can seperate horniness from rape.


Democracy requires freedom of speech in general, not allowing hate speech against minority groups.

Why don't you actually demonstrate how is it that not allowing hate speech would undermine mass democracy?

You think in such absolutist "black-and-white" terms.


If a group has the right to ban certain speach, then they have the right to ban every speach.


Communism is not a return in the social sense to the primitive tribal era.


No one is making that argument.


And you cannot mechanically and absolutely separate "competition in the realm of ideas" and "competition in concrete reality". It's almost as if you believe in some kind of "quasi-Platonic" realm of "pure ideas", completely independent from concrete social reality.


..... What??? Are you talking with me??? Your making shit up.


So that those who are not as good at throwing around personal insults as other people are not disadvantaged in any social sense.


Should we legislate AGAINST funny people? Because unfunny people are socially disadvantaged??
in what world is making you successful with people the states job?


the local community should still intervene and offer help to such individuals

Its called calling someone a douch bag and a dick ...


Maybe I haven't heard you correctly, but you just sound like such people should just be left to "fend for themselves". Even without any formal legislation, the democratic local community should still offer help to such individuals.


If you see someone being bullied you sohuld stick up for that guy .... But thats not the job of some formal institution.

I mean, whats next, should we provide state help for ugly people, because they can get laid???


I mean it's almost like you are saying that if you see one person bullying another, rather than criticising the bully, you would rather criticise the bullied person for "not being tough enough"...


No, I would'nt do that, bullies are dicks, but you ALLOWED to be a dick.

[Queercommie Girl]

Where have I said that? Is it a RIGHT for someone to not say bad stuff about you?


Depends on what the "bad stuff" is. I stand by my principle to generally disallow hate speech against minority groups, such as calling black people a "nigger", and I'm sure the vast majority of minorities here on RevLeft would agree with me.

Doesn't mean I promote the literal banning of every kind of personal insults.

Surely since you believe in democracy, then even such things should be democratically determined as well, no? You can't just go around and dictate to everyone that they must obey your version of "absolute freedom of speech".

So let me say what I think, and you can say what you think, and ultimately the people will democratically decide.



Why should the KKK be banned? I'm pretty sure looking around they lost the free speach debate, whreas in Germany where neo-nazis are banned ......

Why should they be banned, are you THAT scared of their ideas that you can't refute them?


This isn't about "being scared" at all. This is a matter of political prudence. You think "truth and justice" will always "naturally prevail" in our world?

And this is a gulf between Leninism and anarchism that can never be bridged. Even the most ultra-leftist Trotskyite Leninists would agree that certain vile fascist groups must be literally and explicitly banned, just like Lenin banned the fascist Black Hundreds group in Russia after the October Revolution.



Yes you can separate them, the same way you can seperate horniness from rape.


So you think it's ok for a man to regularly fantasise about raping a woman? That's sexist non-sense. There is nothing wrong with fantasising about a woman sexually, but fantasising about rape is a different matter. Of course, thought is not something that can be directly legislated, but it doesn't mean it's just "all right" to fantasise about rape.



If a group has the right to ban certain speach, then they have the right to ban every speach.


"If you are not with us, then you must be against us". - Bush

Sounds familiar?



..... What??? Are you talking with me??? Your making shit up.


I'm making "shit" up? You really think you can completely isolate the "realm of ideas" in any kind of serious analysis?

I'm merely pointing out you cannot completely separate the two. Pure speech still have concrete physical consequences in many situations.



Should we legislate AGAINST funny people? Because unfunny people are socially disadvantaged??


You are comparing apples with oranges. Funny people don't interfere with unfunny people's freedom in the way a racist bigot interferes negatively with the freedom of a black or Asian person.

Even the progressive bourgeois understands that people have freedom as long as they don't interfere negatively with the freedom of other people.



If you see someone being bullied you sohuld stick up for that guy .... But thats not the job of some formal institution.


Anarchists of course don't believe in any kind of "formal institution" anyway...



I mean, whats next, should we provide state help for ugly people, because they can get laid???


This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. You are comparing apples with oranges. There is a fundamental difference between "competition" in which the participants do not negatively interfere with each other in any way and the situation in which one party actively hinders the other party in some way, e.g. through racist insults.

As I said, people only have freedom as long as it does not hinder the freedom of others.

Are we talking about society now or the hypothetical communist society in the future? If it's the latter, then it's mostly just abstract hypothesising without much utility, and if it's the former, well we all know that in capitalist society "attraction" is not really based on how "ugly" one is or not, or what one's personality is, but on how fat one's wallet is...



No, I would'nt do that, bullies are dicks, but you ALLOWED to be a dick.

I'm a non-sectarian socialist you see, so I'm actually trying to bridge the ideological gap between us as much as possible here without abandoning my own ideological principles, rather than simply arguing with you for the sake of arguing. I'd say at the very least society should actively discourage people from being "dicks", rather than simply sticking to the minimum abstract principle of "people are allowed to be dicks".

[Revolution starts with U]

So actively preventing reactionaries from broadcasting their propaganda is anti-socialist or anti-worker's state?
Depends, is it an individual or small group that can be held responsible should things get out of hand? More than likely it is the state, or some vanguard in control of the state, that would throw me in gulag along with the reactionaries along with Marx, shit probably MLK too, becuaue we're not leninist enough for you fundamentalists.
I oppose the war on speech more than the war on drugs, and both for the same reasons. They don't work, and they put too much power into smaller and smaller hands.


But communism isn't a return to such a kind of primitive tribalism in a social sense. To use a simple analogy, suppose there is bullying in a high school, you would probably want to see the bullied kids "toughen up" and fight back against the bullies themselves, whereas I would say the teachers should actually actively intervene.
Yes and then the teacher, given ultimate power, begins to play favorites. His/her child and all the goody two shoe kids get all the perks and everyone else plays second fiddle. And now just how well did your "destruction of classes" work out for you? Leninist vangaurdism is just replacing one class for another; one set of cruel leaders for a new set.


Communism is not a social darwinist jungle based on the law of "the survival of the strongest". Of course you are just talking about verbal freedom here, you certainly are not promoting the idea that people are free to do whatever they like in a literal physical sense, e.g. physically attacking other people. This is good, but you don't seem to realise that the two, verbal and physical, are intrinsically linked. And even in a society of complete verbal freedom, some people would be disadvantaged simply because they are "verbally weaker" than others. I believe in affirmative action and some degree of "positive discrimination" for those who are disadvantaged, rather than just a system of "purely free competition".
And that is where it is the job of rational people to band together and fight such language. What should never happen is placing said power in the hands of the state. You seem to think I won't laugh a racists out of town, and/or punch the one who won't leave in the nose. Speech is not something the state could ever protect well (is there anything?) it's far too broad a stroke to leave up to anything less than the individual in local communities..




Well, you are an anarchist while I am a Leninist, so I think we will just debate around this issue to no avail.
Could that possibly because you say things like "truth is irrelevant, only my personal beliefs matter?"


Well, you haven't demonstrated so far that you really care about minority rights.
Actual for all your pointless moralizing and ad hominem, we, I think, would be the ones who would actually protect the minority when it came down to it. When someone tells them they're not allowed to learn because they are too reactionary, we will be the ones stepping and saying "let them learn the error of their ways."
You think because YOU are progressive that the vangaurd will be? Please... spare me. THe vangaurd are professional revolutionaries. They will be made up of those who are power hungry enough to want such a position. I doubt you could even make it on the list.


It depends on what exactly you mean by "banned". I'm not saying we just give out prison sentences for everyone who makes a relatively minor racist remark or something, but people must realise that such discriminatory remarks are not just "all right" and something everyone can freely say in a "free society", society and the public in general should certainly rebuke such racist bigots, even if there is no systematic punishment for their words.
I agree here. It is up to the individual in local communities to protect speech, not the state.


But of course if it's an actual group or social organisation that is based on racist ideologies, rather than just a single racist individual, like the KKK for example, then it's a completely different matter. Yes I do strongly believe organisations like the KKK or neo-fascist groups should be banned. Freedom of speech is never completely absolute. It is context-dependent, and there is a limit to it.
Yes, but you are not powerful enough to lead the vangaurd. They would restrict the KKK (unecessary because the more light that was shed on teh KKK, the more influence it lost). And then they would restrict the Green Party, and then left communists, anarchists, democratic socialists, and anyone else who questioned the motives of the "glorious leaders."


Democracy requires freedom of speech in general, not allowing hate speech against minority groups.

Why don't you actually demonstrate how is it that not allowing hate speech would undermine mass democracy?
Plain and simply, power corrupts, and freedom starts in the mind. Give one class power over people's minds and you corrupt freedom at its source. If anything goes wrong, who can say? Speech is not free.
Will you put the vanguard in charge of abortion? Only progressive women have the "right to choose?" Sterilize the reactionary women?
You think you're in the right here, and morally, protecting minorities from abuse is right. But when you extend that power to the state you move from a good-ness do-er, unto a do-gooder. And do-gooders fuck everything up.


Even if as an anarchist you do not believe in state intervention, the local community should still intervene and offer help to such individuals, like how the "local anarchist militias" can potentially prevent physical crimes in the local community without a standing army or police force in the Leninist Soviet sense.
Agreed. What should not happen is the unaccountable state being in control of it. Individuals and local communities can be put on trial. Who would dare put the glorious leader on trial?



I mean it's almost like you are saying that if you see one person bullying another, rather than criticising the bully, you would rather criticise the bullied person for "not being tough enough"...
I personally have faced this situation many times. I personally know exactly what I would do. I would personally intervene on behalf of the bullied, and criticize the bully. But I would also criticize the bullied for not standing up for him/herself. It's not hard to learn how to kick someone in the balls, or at the very least find some help. If people don't start to take some responsiblity, it will be a long time coming before we see the revolution; after all it starts with YOU :tt2:
(Spare me Bud Struggle. I know this sounds like what you're always trying to say. It's not. I talk of responsibility in the truthful sense; by not denying the systematic disenfranchisement inherent to capitalism.)



Yes and I'm not really an anti-anarchist, though I am certainly not an anarchist either, and I find the hooligan-like political methods of some anarchists (certainly not all) and their cultural adherence to a kind of "manarchism" not conducive at all to real serious worker's activism and movement. And I always stick to my political principles and point out what I think are errors when I see them. Nothing personal.
And it's a good thing you're not power hungry enough to lead the vanguard. The ones that are, that you want to place ultimate power in the hands of.... they don't like us anarchists. They will kill us, along with the capitalists.

[ComradeMan]

Leninism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anarchism or some other ultra-leftist BS.


Yes, it was just such a wonderful success wasn't it? :rolleyes:


You can go and continue to care about your "abstract logic", I will continue to put defending the worker's state my top priority.

Ergo? So you defend the worker's state with rubbish arguments based on flawed logic. Well done!


Basically you put "abstract logic" before concrete human welfare, which is ironic coming from someone who is supposedly anti-technocratic, since such attitudes is indeed one potential problem of a technocratic system.

I smell a strawman here? So if someone argues that there are unicorns on the moon in order to help the socialist workers state that would then be the truth? :laugh:


If I have to choose between upholding abstract mathematical truth or saving an innocent person's life, I'd much rather save the innocent person's life, even when it is "irrational" to do so. (Hypothetically).

What are you babbling on about? You asserted something in the name of a workers state that was illogical and cannot be defended.


If you want to equate Leninist vanguardism with the medieval church or with elitist authoritarianism, then you can do so. Doesn't mean you are right at all though.

Doesn't mean I am wrong either. More failure of logic. As for Leninist vanguardism- well, like the medieval church they were good at killing innocent people too- like the Tsar's children- including the haemophiliac boy. Brave stuff.


I don't have a problem with white hetero males in general, I do however have a problem with them if they are chavs who are insensitive about the issues of disadvantaged minority groups and keep on promoting their "manarchist" macho BS..

I just looked up that word "chav"- it's at best classist and at worst racist. :thumbdown:


Look at your own use of words for instance. You said I would be "squealing about injustice". This very use of word shows your macho bias - the implication is that explicitly complaining about injustice is a form of "whining", and not something a self-respecting tough "manly man" would ever do. People should just toughen up when discriminated against by others, rather than complaining or "whining" about it, right?..

:laugh::laugh::laugh: What a crock of shit.

Stop using your gender-identity/orientation as a way of sneakily blackmailing people morally. I couldn't care less what your orientation/gender-identity is to be honest. It doesn't stop your arguments being rubbish.

[Tim Finnegan]

I just looked up that word "chav"- it's at best classist and at worst racist. :thumbdown:
Not debating the "classist" part, but in what sense could the term be considered "racist"? :confused:

[Viet Minh]

Wow, this thread title is the most accurate, evar!!

[Viet Minh]

Not debating the "classist" part, but in what sense could the term be considered "racist"? :confused:

Its an old gypsy word meaning boy

[Tim Finnegan]

Wow, this thread title is the most accurate, evar!!
That claim offends me! :scared:


Its an old gypsy word meaning boy
Is it? :confused: Well, it certainly doesn't have any such connotations these days, so I'd say we're clear on that one...

[Viet Minh]

That claim offends me! :scared:

:lol: :lol:


Is it? :confused: Well, it certainly doesn't have any such connotations these days, so I'd say we're clear on that one...

Yeah I've never heard it in a racist context. Its losing its classist menaing too, some middle class people I know I might describe as chavs, though not to their face! :D

[El Chuncho]

We rarely use ''chav'' in Northumbria, preferring ''charva'', which is not very classist as working class people use it to mean ''yob'', really.

Actually in a technical sense ''chav'' is not classist either as it derives from the Geordie ''charva'' which means ''ruffian'' (ultimately from ''chavi'', Romani for child). The word meaning ''working class'' and being used only by the middle-class is more of a Sun myth, as any Northumbrian would tell you that the proper ''chavs'' are often middle-class miscreants trying to cause trouble and trying to be all ''African American'' and yobbish, or working-class lads who are ruffians. :D

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah I've never heard it in a racist context. Its losing its classist menaing too, some middle class people I know I might describe as chavs, though not to their face! :D
The pejorative tone is still rooted in what is essentially a contempt for behaviour associated with the working class, though; the criticism it contains when used in reference to a middle class person is essentially: "you are acting like a working class person".


We rarely use ''chav'' in Northumbria, preferring ''charva'', which is not very classist as working class people use it to mean ''yob'', really.
That sounds similar to the Scottish usage of "ned", which similarly refers to a certain kind of yobbish and anti-social behaviour. I think the classist use of "chav" is one predominant in the South, were the accepted cultural "norm" is very much middle class (regardless of whether they constitute any local majority, of course), while in Scotland, the North, and other poorer regions, being working class is not regarded as so exceptional a condition.

[synthesis]

The pejorative tone is still rooted in what is essentially a contempt for behaviour associated with the working class, though; the criticism it contains when used in reference to a middle class person is essentially: "you are acting like a working class person".

This is my problem with the term "wigger." I've never heard anyone use this term in a way that is not implicitly racist; the subtext is that the "wigger" is some sort of traitor to the "white race." White people "acting black" is looked upon with disgust, whereas black people "acting white" is normal and expected. Kind of a double standard there.

(Too many scare quotes, I know.)

[Viet Minh]

The pejorative tone is still rooted in what is essentially a contempt for behaviour associated with the working class, though; the criticism it contains when used in reference to a middle class person is essentially: "you are acting like a working class person".

Its meaning is different, if a middle class person uses the term I feel uncomfortable, like a serf bowing before his 'lord and master' if a working class person uses it, even the working class snob type, its different it is more to do with loutish or unsociable behaviour. My experience of neds though they are a different breed form the working class proper. I know that sounds potentially offensive like I expect the working clarses someone to doff their cap at their 'betters'.. What I mean is the working class (at least many I have worked with) see the 'neds' as an underclass below themselves; the criminal, drug addled joyriding stereotype.


That sounds similar to the Scottish usage of "ned", which similarly refers to a certain kind of yobbish and anti-social behaviour. I think the classist use of "chav" is one predominant in the South, were the accepted cultural "norm" is very much middle class (regardless of whether they constitute any local majority, of course), while in Scotland, the North, and other poorer regions, being working class is not regarded as so exceptional a condition.

I heard a few times ned is an acronym for non-educated delinquent, I'm not sure if thats true however (or grammatically correct!)

[synthesis]

I heard a few times ned is an acronym for non-educated delinquent, I'm not sure if thats true however (or grammatically correct!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym

[Tim Finnegan]

Its meaning is different, if a middle class person uses the term I feel uncomfortable, like a serf bowing before his 'lord and master' if a working class person uses it, even the working class snob type, its different it is more to do with loutish or unsociable behaviour.
Arguably so, although I wouldn't ignore the ability of the socially excluded to absorb the ideological of the socially dominant. Especially in this age of the "middle class majority", use by the working class can have certain overtones of what you might call "self-hate".


My experience of neds though they are a different breed form the working class proper. I know that sounds potentially offensive like I expect the working clarses someone to doff their cap at their 'betters'.. What I mean is the working class (at least many I have worked with) see the 'neds' as an underclass below themselves; the criminal, drug addled joyriding stereotype.That's about right. As I said, "ned" has particular connotations of anti-social behaviour that aren't rooted in class as such.


I heard a few times ned is an acronym for non-educated delinquent, I'm not sure if thats true however (or grammatically correct!)I think that's a rationalisation more than anything else (a "backronym", as they're known to nerds like me, and only nerds like me)- although it's perhaps worth noting that even then it at least makes specific reference to delinquency, which, again, isn't an explicitly "classed" characteristic, suggesting that it's an important distinction.

Edit: Hey, Synthesis must be a nerd too! :D

[RGacky3]

Surely since you believe in democracy, then even such things should be democratically determined as well, no? You can't just go around and dictate to everyone that they must obey your version of "absolute freedom of speech".



YOu don't have to OBAY freedom of speach, no ones forcing you to say anything.

thats the whole point.


This isn't about "being scared" at all. This is a matter of political prudence. You think "truth and justice" will always "naturally prevail" in our world?

And this is a gulf between Leninism and anarchism that can never be bridged. Even the most ultra-leftist Trotskyite Leninists would agree that certain vile fascist groups must be literally and explicitly banned, just like Lenin banned the fascist Black Hundreds group in Russia after the October Revolution.


And Anarhcists, and other socialists, and people that did'nt agree with him, so yeah, THATS what happens when you create the power to control speach.


So you think it's ok for a man to regularly fantasise about raping a woman? That's sexist non-sense. There is nothing wrong with fantasising about a woman sexually, but fantasising about rape is a different matter. Of course, thought is not something that can be directly legislated, but it doesn't mean it's just "all right" to fantasise about rape.


Well, if your fantasising about rape, somethings probably wrong with you, and you need to see a doctor, but yeah, you cannot and should not legislate against thought, thats insane.


I'm merely pointing out you cannot completely separate the two. Pure speech still have concrete physical consequences in many situations.


SO does a lot of things, but you can't ban everything that might have bad consequences .... we'll maybe leninists can try.


"If you are not with us, then you must be against us". - Bush

Sounds familiar?


Has nothing to do with what I said.


Funny people don't interfere with unfunny people's freedom in the way a racist bigot interferes negatively with the freedom of a black or Asian person.


As I said, people only have freedom as long as it does not hinder the freedom of others.


Calling a black person a nigger is not interfering with his freedom.

being offensive, is not interfering with anyones freedom.

banning certain speach IS interfering with someones freedom.


I'd say at the very least society should actively discourage people from being "dicks", rather than simply sticking to the minimum abstract principle of "people are allowed to be dicks".

Absolutely, but I think that happens naturally (take out capitalism, because capitalism kind of encourages it), because people don't like to be around dicks.

[ComradeMan]

Not debating the "classist" part, but in what sense could the term be considered "racist"? :confused:

Well perhaps it's a cultural mistranslation- I checked the word, which I've heard British people use, I think here too in the past:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

It seems your basically calling a person you perceive to be low-class and ignorant a "gypsy boy"- In Italian the word "zingaro" (gypsy) is also used in a derogatory way.

I don't know, perhaps it's a light insult in the UK but it stinks of classism with a touch of racism to me.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well perhaps it's a cultural mistranslation- I checked the word, which I've heard British people use, I think here too in the past:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

It seems your basically calling a person you perceive to be low-class and ignorant a "gypsy boy"- In Italian the word "zingaro" (gypsy) is also used in a derogatory way.

I don't know, perhaps it's a light insult in the UK but it stinks of classism with a touch of racism to me.
Well, the classist element is certainly plain and clear, as I've said, but I think that the racial component is etymological rather than a living connotation. (I certainly had no idea that the word had such origins.) The various backronyms and rationalisations mentioned in your link suggest that the ethnic component is long-forgotten, while placing a strong emphasis on class and regional associations.

[Viet Minh]

Well perhaps it's a cultural mistranslation- I checked the word, which I've heard British people use, I think here too in the past:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

It seems your basically calling a person you perceive to be low-class and ignorant a "gypsy boy"- In Italian the word "zingaro" (gypsy) is also used in a derogatory way.

I don't know, perhaps it's a light insult in the UK but it stinks of classism with a touch of racism to me.

I've never heard it used in a context of anti-Romani racism. There are specific words used for Romani people, 'Gypsies' is considered by some to be offensive as well (it was used because people's geography back then was a bit iffy, and thought Romani people were from Egypt) there is also a certain amount of confusion between Scots/ Irish travellers who are refferred to as 'Tinkers' (some refer to themselves as such so I hope they won't mind me using the word in context).

One of my friends form Algeria kept getting called a 'Paki' (again apologies for using a racist term, its hard to describe otherwise) I suggested he start carrying a World map with him. But sadly racists have no interest in facts, except pseudo-scientific/ social studies and selective statistics.

[#FF0000]

Well perhaps it's a cultural mistranslation- I checked the word, which I've heard British people use, I think here too in the past:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

It seems your basically calling a person you perceive to be low-class and ignorant a "gypsy boy"- In Italian the word "zingaro" (gypsy) is also used in a derogatory way.

I don't know, perhaps it's a light insult in the UK but it stinks of classism with a touch of racism to me.

Huh. Reminds me a lot of the term 'guido' in America. Traditionally it's a slur against Italians, but nowadays it refers to people who wear a ton of fake tan and things like that.

[Tim Finnegan]

Huh. Reminds me a lot of the term 'guido' in America. Traditionally it's a slur against Italians, but nowadays it refers to people who wear a ton of fake tan and things like that.
Doesn't "guido" still have specific connotations of Italian-ness, though? I'm not sure if it's become detached in quite the same way as "chav" has from any connotations of Roma people; it's more like using "gay" as a generic pejorative than as a similar usage of "dumb", if you'll allow a slightly clumsy analogy.

[El Chuncho]

Well perhaps it's a cultural mistranslation- I checked the word, which I've heard British people use, I think here too in the past:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

It seems your basically calling a person you perceive to be low-class and ignorant a "gypsy boy".

It depends, as stated, the word has no class connotations in my area, Tim is probably right that it might in the UK in areas like London, but most people who use it in Northumbria are working-class. And ''Chav'' doesn't mean ''Gypsy boy'', just boy. It was borrowed from Romani into Geordie because a lot of working-class Geordies in Newcastle have some Roma ancestry. It morphed into a word synonymous with 'scallywag''.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, it was just such a wonderful success wasn't it? :rolleyes:


More successful than anarchists for sure. At least Leninists actually created a socialist state which later failed. Anarchism was never successful in a revolutionary sense.



Ergo? you defend the worker's state with rubbish arguments based on flawed logic. Well done!
I care more about concrete worker's rights than any kind of abstract logic.



I smell a strawman here? So if someone argues that there are unicorns on the moon in order to help the socialist workers state that would then be the truth? :laugh:
I'm not even going to answer that, since it's such a stupid question that has no bearing on any kind of reality, and I'm not interested in pondering purely abstract philosophical problems.



What are you babbling on about? You asserted something in the name of a workers state that was illogical and cannot be defended.
For materialists, "abstract logic" isn't the primary consideration. Social reality comes first, "logic" after all is a human construction.



Doesn't mean I am wrong either. More failure of logic. As for Leninist vanguardism- well, like the medieval church they were good at killing innocent people too- like the Tsar's children- including the haemophiliac boy. Brave stuff.
One might debate with the precise reasoning for killing the Tsar's family, but in a general sense there is nothing wrong with killing reactionary class enemies. If that's the only reason you reject Leninist vanguardism, maybe you shouldn't be a revolutionary at all, since you seem to be afraid of blood being shed.



I just looked up that word "chav"- it's at best classist and at worst racist. :thumbdown:
Nope, it's not "racist" and not really "classist" where I am at all.

Besides, many workers are reactionary on many issues. Just because someone is working class doesn't mean they can't be criticised in a negative way. Workers aren't saints, nor are they always correct on everything.



:laugh::laugh::laugh: What a crock of shit.

Stop using your gender-identity/orientation as a way of sneakily blackmailing people morally. I couldn't care less what your orientation/gender-identity is to be honest. It doesn't stop your arguments being rubbish.
So does this mean you don't care at all about the LGBT movement and don't think it is an important political movement in the contemporary world? Shame on you then.

What exactly are my arguments then? I don't think you are clear even about that. I just take anti-discrimination very seriously, and apparently you do not. Besides, you don't even seem to have a consistent stance on the issue debated in this thread. At first you claim people shouldn't be allowed to say things that are offensive, and then later you claim to be on the same side as those who believe in the absolute freedom of speech. It seems like you are not interested in any kind of real arguments at all, but rather simply want to use this thread as an excuse to be offensive to me.

You just don't appreciate the importance of anti-discrimination, since you don't know what it's like to be a minority who is being discriminated against.

And you think my critique of people like Adi Shankara and Conquer or Die in the past on this forum due to their queerphobia is a form of "sneakily blackmailing people" as well, right? :rolleyes: (Shankara was actually banned for transphobia and queerphobia)

Do you deny that the use of masculine-style/macho language is a reflection of the systematic gender inequality that exists in the world today?

Basically either you like to talk to women in a very disrespectful way, which means you are sexist, or you don't really consider me as a woman, which means you are transphobic.

You never really say anything that is constructive to me.

[Queercommie Girl]

Depends, is it an individual or small group that can be held responsible should things get out of hand? More than likely it is the state, or some vanguard in control of the state, that would throw me in gulag along with the reactionaries along with Marx, shit probably MLK too, becuaue we're not leninist enough for you fundamentalists.


It depends on the situation. Sometimes non-statists can be just as damaging and reactionary as statists.

After all, if you think about it, none of the tribes in pre-class societies had explicit states, yet violent tribal wars still occurred and many people died. "State" isn't the ultimate cause of all evil in the human world.

You seem to have a very negative and unwarranted view of Leninism. Genuine Leninism supports worker's democracy, so no-one would be thrown into any gulags, as long as they are not explicitly anti-socialist. (In the real sense)



I oppose the war on speech more than the war on drugs, and both for the same reasons. They don't work, and they put too much power into smaller and smaller hands.


These things are context-dependent. I care more about the struggle against discrimination and the fight against capitalist drug cartels than the abstract fight for "absolute freedom".



Yes and then the teacher, given ultimate power, begins to play favorites. His/her child and all the goody two shoe kids get all the perks and everyone else plays second fiddle. And now just how well did your "destruction of classes" work out for you? Leninist vangaurdism is just replacing one class for another; one set of cruel leaders for a new set.


Strictly speaking using "teachers" in this context isn't such an accurate analogy at all, unless you take the ridiculous position that teachers aren't "real workers".

Leninism is not replacing one class with another. Bureaucratic deformation is deformed Leninism, not real Leninism.

And just because someone seems to have more authority than others in certain situations, like teachers, doesn't mean there are still classes present. You will never have a world of absolute egalitarianism. Even in pre-class tribal societies without any states, some people still enjoy more social respect than others and have more social authority.



And that is where it is the job of rational people to band together and fight such language. What should never happen is placing said power in the hands of the state. You seem to think I won't laugh a racists out of town, and/or punch the one who won't leave in the nose. Speech is not something the state could ever protect well (is there anything?) it's far too broad a stroke to leave up to anything less than the individual in local communities..


The socialist state consists of nothing more than democratically organised workers in various local communities in the concrete sense, it's not an abstract organ of power.

The fact that the state officially denounces discriminatory language etc is not for reasons of abstract protection, but to formally denounces certain kinds of social unacceptable behaviour in society in general. It's just a more systematic version of your idea.



Could that possibly because you say things like "truth is irrelevant, only my personal beliefs matter?"


I don't know why you keep on bringing in my "personal" beliefs, since I'm not making any "personal" points at all here, but only general principles against discrimination, which many other people would also agree.

A tough stance against discrimination against minorities etc isn't a personal statement, but a political one.



Actual for all your pointless moralizing and ad hominem, we, I think, would be the ones who would actually protect the minority when it came down to it. When someone tells them they're not allowed to learn because they are too reactionary, we will be the ones stepping and saying "let them learn the error of their ways."

You think because YOU are progressive that the vangaurd will be? Please... spare me. THe vangaurd are professional revolutionaries. They will be made up of those who are power hungry enough to want such a position. I doubt you could even make it on the list.


It doesn't matter. I believe in vanguardism as a principle. The ones who are more powerful aren't always the ones who are objectively correct in the ideological sense. There are "false vanguards", such as those with bureaucratic privileges and dictatorial powers.



I agree here. It is up to the individual in local communities to protect speech, not the state.


And in Leninist parlance, the "socialist state" is nothing more than the organised collective of democratic local working communities.



Yes, but you are not powerful enough to lead the vangaurd. They would restrict the KKK (unecessary because the more light that was shed on teh KKK, the more influence it lost). And then they would restrict the Green Party, and then left communists, anarchists, democratic socialists, and anyone else who questioned the motives of the "glorious leaders."


Which is why genuine worker's democracy is required to make sure that the "vanguard" is not just a mob of armed men with superior violent power to enforce their own ways.



Plain and simply, power corrupts, and freedom starts in the mind.


That's idealistic non-sense, since the "mind" is nothing more than the mental reflections of material social reality.



Give one class power over people's minds and you corrupt freedom at its source. If anything goes wrong, who can say? Speech is not free.


The genuine vanguard of the working class consists of the most ideologically advanced layers of the working class, it's not "another class" at all.

Freedom of speech, as I keep on saying, is not an "absolutist" thing. It's not just "black-and-white". It's context-dependent. It's not very useful to make such abstract general statements in politics.



You think you're in the right here, and morally, protecting minorities from abuse is right. But when you extend that power to the state you move from a good-ness do-er, unto a do-gooder. And do-gooders fuck everything up.


Not if the "state" or collective worker's society is underpinned by genuine mass democracy.



Agreed. What should not happen is the unaccountable state being in control of it. Individuals and local communities can be put on trial. Who would dare put the glorious leader on trial?


Who said anything about the "state" being unaccountable?



I personally have faced this situation many times. I personally know exactly what I would do. I would personally intervene on behalf of the bullied, and criticize the bully. But I would also criticize the bullied for not standing up for him/herself. It's not hard to learn how to kick someone in the balls, or at the very least find some help. If people don't start to take some responsiblity, it will be a long time coming before we see the revolution; after all it starts with YOU :tt2:


Objectively it's a good thing to be able to fight back against oppression etc, but if you actually explicitly criticise those disadvantaged people who have trouble fighting back, what you are really doing is saying only those who are strong enough deserve to have their rights in society.

Should one criticise those gay teenagers who committed suicide during the homophobic bullying for committing suicide because they were not strong enough to fight back against the homophobes?

Should one criticise those workers in Foxconn plants who committed suicide in China for not actively fighting against the capitalists and managers?

Obviously such things are very tragically regretable, but in such contexts "criticism" isn't the right approach.

And of course objectively speaking your promotion of "absolute" freedom of speech, which would include homophobic speech, might indeed increase the rate of gay teenager suicides. You might try to justify your stance using all kinds of abstract principles, but it doesn't change the fact that in the concrete sense, it makes it more likely for gay suicide rates to increase.



And it's a good thing you're not power hungry enough to lead the vanguard. The ones that are, that you want to place ultimate power in the hands of.... they don't like us anarchists. They will kill us, along with the capitalists.


Leninist vanguardism is ultimately about being ideologically correct, not merely being "powerful". If it's not based on genuine worker's democracy, then it's obviously false vanguardism, which is something I would fight against.

I might continue this debate with you, but frankly ComradeMan is annoying me a lot in this thread, and he seems to not be able to make any constructive statements at all.

[Queercommie Girl]

YOu don't have to OBAY freedom of speach, no ones forcing you to say anything.

thats the whole point.


Obviously I will continue to argue against the notion of absolute freedom of speech.



Has nothing to do with what I said.
I used this analogy because you have a tendency to think in absolutist terms.

The world isn't black-and-white. And "freedom of speech" is context-dependent, not just "either all or nothing".



if your fantasising about rape, somethings probably wrong with you


Well, that's what you said sounded like.



Calling a black person a nigger is not interfering with his freedom.
It does if you realise how racial discrimination can negatively influence with minorities and their lives.

In the US today, sometimes gay teenagers committ suicide due to homophobic bullying. Are you suggesting that homophobic speech has nothing to do with this?



Absolutely, but I think that happens naturally (take out capitalism, because capitalism kind of encourages it), because people don't like to be around dicks.
If it's "purely natural", then how come violent tribal warfare existed in prehistoric societies that had no classes or states?

[Revolution starts with U]

It depends on the situation. Sometimes non-statists can be just as damaging and reactionary as statists.

After all, if you think about it, none of the tribes in pre-class societies had explicit states, yet violent tribal wars still occurred and many people died. "State" isn't the ultimate cause of all evil in the human world.
All true. Yet that wasn't my point. My point was that putting the power over speech in the hands of the states puts the power of the mind in the hands of the state. And the state always seeks more power. Who will criticize the state and get away with it, if the state has control over language?


You seem to have a very negative and unwarranted view of Leninism. Genuine Leninism supports worker's democracy, so no-one would be thrown into any gulags, as long as they are not explicitly anti-socialist. (In the real sense)
I know in theory this is true. But in reality people will be thrown in gulags for talking about capitalism, rather than practicing it. You may think that's okay. But I realize that will be just the first step before they come after the advocates of anarchism.


These things are context-dependent. I care more about the struggle against discrimination and the fight against capitalist drug cartels than the abstract fight for "absolute freedom".
I'm not here to fight for absolute freedom... that's a fantasy. Absolute freedom would be my freedom to kill you, and were that the case, human society could never get off the ground.
What I'm saying is that you cannot ban these types of things without causing more problems than you set out to fix?


Strictly speaking using "teachers" in this context isn't such an accurate analogy at all, unless you take the ridiculous position that teachers aren't "real workers".
The analogy is that the teacher is the state, and the students are the workers. It's not a representation of reality, it's a metaphor.


Leninism is not replacing one class with another. Bureaucratic deformation is deformed Leninism, not real Leninism.
While I agree, I differ on some key points. We can, should, and probably will need to have a vanguard. But explicitly pointing out they are the vanguard is a problem. Making them a "professional vanguard" is what turns them into deformed vanguards. When you make it explicit, you give them political power, and you've now created a political class in the name of destroying classes.


And just because someone seems to have more authority than others in certain situations, like teachers, doesn't mean there are still classes present. You will never have a world of absolute egalitarianism. Even in pre-class tribal societies without any states, some people still enjoy more social respect than others and have more social authority.
See above.


The socialist state consists of nothing more than democratically organised workers in various local communities in the concrete sense, it's not an abstract organ of power.
Yes, and I agree. But creating an explicit vanguard will never allow this to happen, especially if said vanguard is in control of speech. They will stamp out dissent and ruin communities antithema (am I using that correctly) to their vision of a socialist society.


The fact that the state officially denounces discriminatory language etc is not for reasons of abstract protection, but to formally denounces certain kinds of social unacceptable behaviour in society in general. It's just a more systematic version of your idea.
Exactly, it's systematic. In reality it should be personal.


I don't know why you keep on bringing in my "personal" beliefs, since I'm not making any "personal" points at all here, but only general principles against discrimination, which many other people would also agree.

A tough stance against discrimination against minorities etc isn't a personal statement, but a political one.
I'm as much against these actions as you. I just differ on the methods to combat it. We should only be legislating against action, never speech.
And all political statements are personal statements.


It doesn't matter. I believe in vanguardism as a principle. The ones who are more powerful aren't always the ones who are objectively correct in the ideological sense. There are "false vanguards", such as those with bureaucratic privileges and dictatorial powers.
And if you make the vanguard explicit, something you can join and train for, you will get bureaucratic privileges and dictators every time. Only the power hungry will seek the position.
We can have a vanguard, but it must be something the people recognize you for, not real political power you have grabbed for yourself.


And in Leninist parlance, the "socialist state" is nothing more than the organised collective of democratic local working communities.

Which is why genuine worker's democracy is required to make sure that the "vanguard" is not just a mob of armed men with superior violent power to enforce their own ways.
No disagreement here. But far more important would be to not make the vanguard professional. It should be something you're either explicitly or implicitly "elected" for.


That's idealistic non-sense, since the "mind" is nothing more than the mental reflections of material social reality.
You know nothing about me. How about this; expression starts in the neurological synapses inside your head. I'm certainly no idealist philosopher. But the mind still exists, it is a word we have created to mean the functions that formulate thought processes. If you give the state control over speech, you have given them control of the mind. And now who will criticize the state and get away with it?


The genuine vanguard of the working class consists of the most ideologically advanced layers of the working class, it's not "another class" at all.
If you make it professional, it will be.


Freedom of speech, as I keep on saying, is not an "absolutist" thing. It's not just "black-and-white". It's context-dependent. It's not very useful to make such abstract general statements in politics.
it's not the place of the central authority to meddle in these affairs. If a local community wants to deal with it, that's good, and I'm right there with it. I know you say "socialist state is just collection of..." but no.. actually that's somewhat incorrect. That would be statelessness.
The state is the central authority with the monopoly on violence and maintenance of the ruling classes' privileged position in society as its' primary initiative.
So maybe we're just talking past each other here.



Not if the "state" or collective worker's society is underpinned by genuine mass democracy.

Who said anything about the "state" being unaccountable?
On the first part, no disagreements.
On the second... that's just how states work.


Objectively it's a good thing to be able to fight back against oppression etc, but if you actually explicitly criticise those disadvantaged people who have trouble fighting back, what you are really doing is saying only those who are strong enough deserve to have their rights in society.
I'm saying only those that are strong enough WILL have their rights in society. The gay community hasn't been making headway on their freedom in the states by sitting in dark corners complaining about their situation. They are out in the streets, taking it to the system, and fighting!


Should one criticise those gay teenagers who committed suicide during the homophobic bullying for committing suicide because they were not strong enough to fight back against the homophobes?
No because that would serve no purpose. They're dead. Criticizing them will not help them stand up for themselves.
I was a 4ft nothing skinny redhead until I hit my growth spurt. Nobody picked on me because I would throw my books across the room and be like "let's go!" Fortunately, I'm an adequate pugilist, so the few times someone actually wanted to fight, it worked out for me. But I can tell you most people respect the people who are willing to fight, regardless of whether they win or not.


Should one criticise those workers in Foxconn plants who committed suicide in China for not actively fighting against the capitalists and managers?
See above. Criticizing the dead serves no purpose. And again, it's not so much criticism that is needed, but self-empowerment. One should teach the disenfranchised how to stand tall, and stand tall with them.



And of course objectively speaking your promotion of "absolute" freedom of speech,
That's not my position at all. Stop straw manning me and deal with my actual stance.


Leninist vanguardism is ultimately about being ideologically correct, not merely being "powerful". If it's not based on genuine worker's democracy, then it's obviously false vanguardism, which is something I would fight against.

I might continue this debate with you, but frankly ComradeMan is annoying me a lot in this thread, and he seems to not be able to make any constructive statements at all.
He does that sometimes :lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

All true. Yet that wasn't my point. My point was that putting the power over speech in the hands of the states puts the power of the mind in the hands of the state. And the state always seeks more power. Who will criticize the state and get away with it, if the state has control over language?


Depends on what the "state" is, doesn't it? Slavery state, feudal state, capitalist state...they are all very different.

The "socialist state" is no more than an executive organ of the democratic collective political power of the organised working masses.



I know in theory this is true. But in reality people will be thrown in gulags for talking about capitalism, rather than practicing it. You may think that's okay. But I realize that will be just the first step before they come after the advocates of anarchism.
In theory anarchism may sound good too, until it degenerates into anarcho-capitalism and a social darwinist "law of the jungle" in reality...



I'm not here to fight for absolute freedom... that's a fantasy. Absolute freedom would be my freedom to kill you, and were that the case, human society could never get off the ground.

What I'm saying is that you cannot ban these types of things without causing more problems than you set out to fix?
Of course, both you and the other anarchists here like gacky certainly aren't mad enough to actually promote "freedom of action" in the same way you promote "freedom of speech".

But then one could use a similar argument to what you have used regarding "freedom of action" too. If certain forms of action are prohibited, then what's to stop society prohibiting other types of freedom of action?

The difference between the harmfulness of discriminatory speech (like homophobic remarks) and discriminatory action (like punching a queer person) is only a matter of degree.



While I agree, I differ on some key points. We can, should, and probably will need to have a vanguard. But explicitly pointing out they are the vanguard is a problem. Making them a "professional vanguard" is what turns them into deformed vanguards. When you make it explicit, you give them political power, and you've now created a political class in the name of destroying classes.
But in a highly complex and advanced society, some degree of "professionalism" would be required. It's a similar argument as the one for technocracy. I don't see the problem as long as genuine worker's democracy is firmly in control.



Exactly, it's systematic. In reality it should be personal.
Anti-discrimination policies on a purely personal and narrowly local level might work in a primitive tribal society with a population measured in the tens of thousands at most, but more systematic methods would be required for a highly complex and advanced 21st century technological society with a population of over 6 billion that is at the dawn of the cybernetic, genetic and space age.

At any rate, I think vanguardism degenerates into bureaucratic deformation (which is very bad, I agree) primarily due to the lack of genuine worker's democratic control, rather than anything to do with how "systematic" or "professional" it might be. Otherwise one might also say that any kind of technocracy must be reactionary because any kind of high-level complex and systematic professionalism would inevitably degenerate into a dictatorship.

Put it another way: obviously people who are like tribesmen from 50,000 years ago wouldn't be able to adequately control a modern-style professional vanguard. But I don't see why a professional and highly advanced working class won't be able to effectively control a professional vanguard in a democratic way. This is of course one reason why pre-class tribal societies could not prevent the rise of class differentiation, but a post-class communist society, in which every worker is relatively advanced both in terms of ideological consciousness and actual talent would not degenerate back into a class society.



And all political statements are personal statements.
This is a fair enough comment in the general sense, but you were trying to label my points and arguments as egoistical personal ones, which they are not.



And if you make the vanguard explicit, something you can join and train for, you will get bureaucratic privileges and dictators every time. Only the power hungry will seek the position.

We can have a vanguard, but it must be something the people recognize you for, not real political power you have grabbed for yourself.

No disagreement here. But far more important would be to not make the vanguard professional. It should be something you're either explicitly or implicitly "elected" for.
I think the key to prevent bureaucratic degeneration is to have a real and effective democratic system in place, rather than making the vanguard "non-professional" and "non-systematic".

An advanced working class would be able to control an advanced vanguard.



If you give the state control over speech, you have given them control of the mind. And now who will criticize the state and get away with it?
But no-one is calling for the "state" or whatever to have overall control of speech. Indeed, most forms of speech would be completely free. I see "freedom of speech" as a quantitative thing, not a qualitative "black-and-white" one. As long as most forms of speech are completely free, I don't really see any potential problems.



If you make it professional, it will be.
I would have said: "if you don't have an effective democratic and supervisory system in place, it will be." The key is not to give anyone political or economic privileges. When being the vanguard no longer implies any kind of economic or political privilege, then the genuine vanguards will come forth, and those who are merely "power-hungry" will not. (Because there is nothing for them to gain in the personal sense by being the "vanguard")



So maybe we're just talking past each other here.
I've always thought whether or not a socialist society has a "state" or is "stateless" is to a large extent a semantical debate, because it depends on exactly what one means by the "state". I think the term classlessness is much more precise.



I'm saying only those that are strong enough WILL have their rights in society. The gay community hasn't been making headway on their freedom in the states by sitting in dark corners complaining about their situation. They are out in the streets, taking it to the system, and fighting!
Obviously this is true in any kind of class society. But in the highly advanced classless society of the future, would people still have to constantly fight for their basic rights and freedoms?



No because that would serve no purpose. They're dead. Criticizing them will not help them stand up for themselves.
I'm talking about criticising those people who fall into depression due to some kind of oppression (be it racist, sexist, queerphobic or simply class oppression all workers experience) rather than actively fighting back, not those who are already dead.



I was a 4ft nothing skinny redhead until I hit my growth spurt. Nobody picked on me because I would throw my books across the room and be like "let's go!" Fortunately, I'm an adequate pugilist, so the few times someone actually wanted to fight, it worked out for me. But I can tell you most people respect the people who are willing to fight, regardless of whether they win or not.

See above. Criticizing the dead serves no purpose. And again, it's not so much criticism that is needed, but self-empowerment. One should teach the disenfranchised how to stand tall, and stand tall with them.
I'm not saying one shouldn't have some degree of admiration for those oppressed peoples who are willing to fight back. After all, this is one aspect of what vanguardism actually implies. However, you are the one who used the term "criticism" rather than "empowerment", not me.

People are willing to fight back in a class society because ultimately they look forward to a world where they no longer have to fight against oppression, because oppression no longer exists. They don't fight back so that they are condemned to be fighting against oppression continuously for an eternity. As Mao once said: the ultimate goal of revolutionary warfare is to put an end to all wars.

People fight against oppression in class societies. But if people have to always fight for their basic rights ad infinitum, without any kind of qualitative and massive improvement in a post-class communist society, one may indeed wonder what is the point of struggling for a socialist revolution against capitalism in the first place, since one would still have problems of discrimination and oppression, just in different ways.

Besides, I thought we were just talking about verbal abuses and freedom of speech here, rather than actually throwing around punches?



That's not my position at all. Stop straw manning me and deal with my actual stance.
If you also think "freedom of speech" is not absolute then you agree that "freedom of speech" is not completely and unconditionally "free". So where would you draw the line? I'm just pointing out that society should generally prohibit certain forms of hate speech, due to the social consequences they might have.

Of course, all of this is rather abstract. We are talking about what policies a hypothetical socialist society in the future should adopt, not what society today is like.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not debating the "classist" part, but in what sense could the term be considered "racist"? :confused:

No I didn't mean to use this term in either the "racist" or the "classist" sense at all.

In general, unless you think workers cannot have reactionary views at all and cannot be criticised simply because they are working class, then for a socialist to employ a negative word to describe a certain section of the working class is not "classist" at all. After all, it is an objective fact that certain workers do have reactionary views on certain issues. There are workers who are very queerphobic or sexist, there are workers who are violent and hooligan-like, and there are workers who support fascist political parties. To make a direct criticism against a minority layer in the working class is certainly not making a "classist" statement against the working class in general. Otherwise you might as well say Karl Marx's own use of the term "lumpen" against certain workers is "classist".

As Lenin once put it, what makes a political force genuinely socialist isn't just determined by its objective class composition in the purely mechanical and reductionist sense, but also by the ideological consciousness of this political force, including that of its leading elements. A political party that is objectively 100% working class but is also explicitly racist and sexist and consists mostly of "lumpenised" elements (in the real sense) would be less socialist in the genuine sense than a political party that is only 50% working class but consists mostly of ideologically advanced members.

[Queercommie Girl]

What a stupid argument. You don't have the right to offend people and free speech does not mean you can go around saying what you want with impunity.


Of course! this is a general moral principle except whenever ComradeMan tries to offend Iseul! :rolleyes:

[Queercommie Girl]

Never. Not a single experiment even hints at this possibility. And every experiment confirms the speed of light as an absolute limiter.

When no experiment says YES (or even MAYBE) and every experiment says NO, you can make some very safe assumptions.

(Talking physical experiments here, not purely theoretical ideas.)

We're stuck on this rock.

This is way off topic and should be taken to the Science forum but, well, you know, restricted and all that.


I wouldn't make a metaphysically negative statement such as this, nor would I dismiss theoretical physics like you are doing here. After all, Albert Einstein was mostly a theorist, yet he is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time by almost everyone.

All we can say is that as of yet, FTL is experimentally and technologically impossible, even though it does not intrinsically violate the known laws of physics in the fundamental sense.

"If an idea does not seem impossible, then there is no hope for it." - Albert Einstein

P.S. To the mods: could you please go through this thread and separate out the off-topic posts on science and make these into a new thread?

[Revolution starts with U]

Depends on what the "state" is, doesn't it? Slavery state, feudal state, capitalist state...they are all very different.

The "socialist state" is no more than an executive organ of the democratic collective political power of the organised working masses.
As i said above, I believe we may be talking past each other here.


In theory anarchism may sound good too, until it degenerates into anarcho-capitalism and a social darwinist "law of the jungle" in reality...
:lol: touche



Of course, both you and the other anarchists here like gacky certainly aren't mad enough to actually promote "freedom of action" in the same way you promote "freedom of speech".
I don't think Gacky is an anarchist. And I'm not "promoting" free speech, per se. I'm in "opposition to" the state being in control of speech.


But then one could use a similar argument to what you have used regarding "freedom of action" too. If certain forms of action are prohibited, then what's to stop society prohibiting other types of freedom of action?
Free speech. People can openly speak their mind about what is/isn't should'shouldn't be allowed.


The difference between the harmfulness of discriminatory speech (like homophobic remarks) and discriminatory action (like punching a queer person) is only a matter of degree.
I agree. I'm not promoting derogatory language. I'm saying it's far too dangerous to put the state in control of speech.


But in a highly complex and advanced society, some degree of "professionalism" would be required. It's a similar argument as the one for technocracy. I don't see the problem as long as genuine worker's democracy is firmly in control.
But not for the vanguard. If you make the vanguard a power position people can seek, only the powerful will seek that position.


Anti-discrimination policies on a purely personal and narrowly local level might work in a primitive tribal society with a population measured in the tens of thousands at most, but more systematic methods would be required for a highly complex and advanced 21st century technological society with a population of over 6 billion that is at the dawn of the cybernetic, genetic and space age.
Those methods don't include thought police. It will start as protecting us from derogatory/discriminatory language, and it will move onto protecting us from speech critical of the vanguard.


At any rate, I think vanguardism degenerates into bureaucratic deformation (which is very bad, I agree) primarily due to the lack of genuine worker's democratic control, rather than anything to do with how "systematic" or "professional" it might be. Otherwise one might also say that any kind of technocracy must be reactionary because any kind of high-level complex and systematic professionalism would inevitably degenerate into a dictatorship.
Well....
Power seeks more power bro. It is a rare instance that classes give up their power willingly.


Put it another way: obviously people who are like tribesmen from 50,000 years ago wouldn't be able to adequately control a modern-style professional vanguard.
Why not? They are no different than us. Most pre-civlized tribal cultures had more meritocracy than geneticocracy.


But I don't see why a professional and highly advanced working class won't be able to effectively control a professional vanguard in a democratic way. This is of course one reason why pre-class tribal societies could not prevent the rise of class differentiation, but a post-class communist society, in which every worker is relatively advanced both in terms of ideological consciousness and actual talent would not degenerate back into a class society.
It could, or could not. That will remain to be seen.


This is a fair enough comment in the general sense, but you were trying to label my points and arguments as egoistical personal ones, which they are not.

I think the key to prevent bureaucratic degeneration is to have a real and effective democratic system in place, rather than making the vanguard "non-professional" and "non-systematic".
If you make the vanguard professional and systematic you will not have an effective democratic system. Power seeks more power, and it doesn't tolerate competition.


An advanced working class would be able to control an advanced vanguard.
That remains to be seen.


But no-one is calling for the "state" or whatever to have overall control of speech. Indeed, most forms of speech would be completely free. I see "freedom of speech" as a quantitative thing, not a qualitative "black-and-white" one. As long as most forms of speech are completely free, I don't really see any potential problems.
Who will decide what speech is not free? Will this be set in stone?


I would have said: "if you don't have an effective democratic and supervisory system in place, it will be." The key is not to give anyone political or economic privileges. When being the vanguard no longer implies any kind of economic or political privilege, then the genuine vanguards will come forth, and those who are merely "power-hungry" will not. (Because there is nothing for them to gain in the personal sense by being the "vanguard")
Then that's not a professional vanguard. A professional vanguard would be something you train/are trained for, that you seek, and that is your job. A vanguard member should not have vanguard-ism as his primary job, or he will merely seek to maintain his privileged position.


I've always thought whether or not a socialist society has a "state" or is "stateless" is to a large extent a semantical debate, because it depends on exactly what one means by the "state". I think the term classlessness is much more precise.
I agree. Like I said, I think we were talking past each other on this issue.


Obviously this is true in any kind of class society. But in the highly advanced classless society of the future, would people still have to constantly fight for their basic rights and freedoms?
Do you think people will just stop spitting the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind; all for me and none for anyone else" really? Yes, the fight to keep and maintain one's freedoms will be a never ending battle. Even were this a Star Trek world with replicators, people will still be trying to get control of the replicators and make you pay for them.


I'm talking about criticising those people who fall into depression due to some kind of oppression (be it racist, sexist, queerphobic or simply class oppression all workers experience) rather than actively fighting back, not those who are already dead.
I don't think it is "criticism" per se that is need, rather than self-empowerment.


I'm not saying one shouldn't have some degree of admiration for those oppressed peoples who are willing to fight back. After all, this is one aspect of what vanguardism actually implies. However, you are the one who used the term "criticism" rather than "empowerment", not me.
Technically I think you asked me if I would criticize the bullied, and I replied I would, but only after criticizing the bully. But like I said, criticism is only needed as a smaller measure of a general promotion of self-empowerment.


People are willing to fight back in a class society because ultimately they look forward to a world where they no longer have to fight against oppression, because oppression no longer exists.
I think that's a little idealistic. I think people fight back because "they're mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!" We can always look forward to a better future. Were that what made us fight, the world would be in perpetual revolution UNTIL a classless society were established.


They don't fight back so that they are condemned to be fighting against oppression continuously for an eternity. As Mao once said: the ultimate goal of revolutionary warfare is to put an end to all wars.
Well... I think they're mistaken. Power never ceases. We need pil sung (constant vigilance) or it will degenerate.


People fight against oppression in class societies. But if people have to always fight for their basic rights ad infinitum, without any kind of qualitative and massive improvement in a post-class communist society, one may indeed wonder what is the point of struggling for a socialist revolution against capitalism in the first place, since one would still have problems of discrimination and oppression, just in different ways.
Because it is in most people's self-interest to not let power develop and get out of hand. When the vast majority of people are the "ruling class" and the under classes (for lack of better terms) are merely made up of those who only want to disenfranchise others (the opposite of now), they, like other classes throughout history, will not give up their privileged position easily.


Besides, I thought we were just talking about verbal abuses and freedom of speech here, rather than actually throwing around punches?

If you also think "freedom of speech" is not absolute then you agree that "freedom of speech" is not completely and unconditionally "free". So where would you draw the line?
I draw the line at the state and/or the vanguard. I thought I made that clear.

I'm just pointing out that society should generally prohibit certain forms of hate speech, due to the social consequences they might have.
That's fine. But it should not be something the state/vanguard can choose arbitrarily. It must be based upon the consent of the people, and able to be changed at once if need be.

[Queercommie Girl]

As i said above, I believe we may be talking past each other here.


As with many "debates" that occur here on RevLeft...



I don't think Gacky is an anarchist.
He calls himself an anarchist.



Free speech. People can openly speak their mind about what is/isn't should'shouldn't be allowed.
What if the same free speech also implies that society in general argue for the prohibition of certain hate speech as well?

If free speech can make people democratically try to prohibit physical hate crimes, then it can make people do the same thing for certain hate speech, in theory.



I agree. I'm not promoting derogatory language.
Well, I never said you were. I never explicitly accused anyone in this thread for being actually discriminatory, not even ComradeMan.



Those methods don't include thought police. It will start as protecting us from derogatory/discriminatory language, and it will move onto protecting us from speech critical of the vanguard.
I didn't say we need the "thought police". I'm just saying some degree of professionalism and systematisation may be required for a highly advanced society.



Well....
Power seeks more power bro. It is a rare instance that classes give up their power willingly.
But we are not talking about a separate class here.



Why not? They are no different than us. Most pre-civlized tribal cultures had more meritocracy than geneticocracy.
Keep in mind that all of this is an abstract debate. It's about what shape the hypothetical future society should be like, rather than any realistic comments about today's situation.

Now, I'm not in any way saying primitive peoples are intrinsically inferior or anything like that, nor am I making the claim that a communist society must be technocratic and the vanguard should impose professionalism and advanced education upon all peoples.

However, according to orthodox Marxism, one reason why potentially communism is a realisable goal in the industrial age is precisely because of the relatively advanced level of the contemporary urban working class, compared with peasants, serfs, slaves and tribesmen of the past. Economic base determines superstructure. Marxism also predicts that communism will produce a society of material abundance and general enlightenment, so people in a communist society will generally be even more advanced than people today. In theory more primitive peoples wouldn't have the means necessary to effectively take control of such an advanced society.

You seem to think "vanguardism" in the more primitivist tribalist sense is somehow less dangerous than technologically advanced, professionalised and systematic vanguardism today or in the future. But I wonder if this is really the case, and you haven't got it the wrong way around.

After all, primitive tribal vanguards were not able to prevent the rise of early class societies, as we all known for certain from objective history. On the other hand, Marxism predicts that in a sufficiently advanced communist society, the re-emergence of class differentiation would be a virtual impossibility.

Ask yourself this: how did human history move from pre-class tribalism to slavery society in the first place? The primitive non-professional non-systematic vanguards of human pre-history already failed. Otherwise we won't even be talking like this today.



If you make the vanguard professional and systematic you will not have an effective democratic system. Power seeks more power, and it doesn't tolerate competition.
Power is not intrinsically a negative thing, if there is effective democracy. Marxism seeks to put power genuinely into the hands of the masses, rather than eliminate power completely.



Who will decide what speech is not free? Will this be set in stone?
Obviously it will be democratically decided. As for whether or not it's set in stone, well nothing can really be set in stone if the masses' will is against it, can it? Genuine mass democracy would apply in both the positive and the negative sense.



Then that's not a professional vanguard. A professional vanguard would be something you train/are trained for, that you seek, and that is your job. A vanguard member should not have vanguard-ism as his primary job, or he will merely seek to maintain his privileged position.
Well Lenin does promote "job rotation" so no-one monopolises political jobs and tasks.

The vanguard isn't a profession in itself, it's merely the most advanced layers of workers from every profession and sector.



Do you think people will just stop spitting the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind; all for me and none for anyone else" really? Yes, the fight to keep and maintain one's freedoms will be a never ending battle.
Depends on what you mean. It was actually me who said here on RevLeft a while ago that "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom" and "eternal revolution is the price of communism".

I'm certainly not afraid to fight or anything. But having said this, there is still a fundamental difference between the fight against oppression today and vigilance against counter-revolution and reaction in a post-class society. Things will never be "perfect" of course, but there would be a significant and qualitative improvement. (Otherwise I would indeed begin to doubt how genuine such a "communist society" really is) For one thing, the political role between progressives and reactionaries would be reversed.

Your analysis of human nature sounds almost Hobbesian. This is against the theory of human nature in orthodox Marxism, which holds that much of the vile-ness in "human nature" today is a direct or indirect product of class society, and would gradually fade away in a genuine classless communist society.



Even were this a Star Trek world with replicators, people will still be trying to get control of the replicators and make you pay for them.
Technically Star Trek never is really very utopian actually, if you look at how many wars they fight all the time...

Back on topic, orthodox Marxism would predict that in a genuine communist society without class differentiation and with great abundance in the material sense, "human nature" would indeed improve, and much of the vile-ness in humanity today would be gone. Of course, nothing can ever be "perfect", but it would still be a significant qualitative transformation in the social sense.



I think that's a little idealistic. I think people fight back because "they're mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!" We can always look forward to a better future. Were that what made us fight, the world would be in perpetual revolution UNTIL a classless society were established.
Well, there is a difference between the spontaneous struggles of the oppressed masses (like workers smashing machinery or contemporary workers in China today literally killing their managers in some cases) and the more advanced ideologically conscious struggles of communists.

The job of socialists is to make the majority of working people struggle in the second manner, and if this can be achieved, then as you say we would be able to establish a truly classless society.

Socialism will never be constructed just on the basis of spontaneous struggles.



Well... I think they're mistaken. Power never ceases. We need pil sung (constant vigilance) or it will degenerate.
Constant vigilance in a genuine communist society is still qualitatively different from fighting against oppression today under capitalism.

If things don't significantly improve on most fronts, then seriously what's the point of class struggle and fighting for a socialist revolution? We don't have a revolution for a sake of revolution or because we have a "revolution-fetish", rather we have a revolution to seriously create a better and more equal world.

And "power" is more of a neutral thing purely in itself rather than intrinsically negative.



Because it is in most people's self-interest to not let power develop and get out of hand. When the vast majority of people are the "ruling class" and the under classes (for lack of better terms) are merely made up of those who only want to disenfranchise others (the opposite of now), they, like other classes throughout history, will not give up their privileged position easily.
Of course there is the threat of counter-revolution. But you seem to acknowledge here as well that there is still a qualitative difference between the state of society under communism (genuine) and under capitalism today.



I draw the line at the state and/or the vanguard. I thought I made that clear.

That's fine. But it should not be something the state/vanguard can choose arbitrarily. It must be based upon the consent of the people, and able to be changed at once if need be.
And no-one ever made any point about "arbitrary decisions". Genuine vanguardism must be based on mass democracy, otherwise it's reactionary.

[ComradeMan]

More successful than anarchists for sure. At least Leninists actually created a socialist state which later failed. Anarchism was never successful in a revolutionary sense..

That's a bit like saying the team that came second were moderately better than the team that came third- despite the fact that second place means first loser. Anarchism has been fairly successful, as in Spain, until- that is, it was crushed by a larger outside force- ironically, usually from the so-called left.


I care more about concrete worker's rights than any kind of abstract logic.

If you are so concerned about the rights of the worker then you should be concerned about presenting your arguments in the name of the worker in such manner that they won't be shot down in flames because of their fallacious logical reasoning.


I'm not even going to answer that, since it's such a stupid question that has no bearing on any kind of reality, and I'm not interested in pondering purely abstract philosophical problems..

Well it makes as much sense as your "concrete" ideas about "holding the truth" etc.... You can't actually defend your own assertions here.


For materialists, "abstract logic" isn't the primary consideration. Social reality comes first, "logic" after all is a human construction...

Society is a human construction. Arguing against logic is tantamount to admitting your arguments don't stand up. But please enlighten a poor "lumpenised scum" [your words] as to what material logic viz. workers' rights is? :rolleyes:


One might debate with the precise reasoning for killing the Tsar's family, but in a general sense there is nothing wrong with killing reactionary class enemies. If that's the only reason you reject Leninist vanguardism, maybe you shouldn't be a revolutionary at all, since you seem to be afraid of blood being shed....

There is nothing "wrong"? I'm not sure El Che would agree with you there. In whatever case, I wonder how a small haemophiliac boy was really a reactionary class enemy and a threat to the Russian Revolution? Could you explain that please?


Nope, it's not "racist" and not really "classist" where I am at all.....

Where you are? That's a convenient ceteris paribus clause thrown in. It's pretty classist and could be construed as racist- but then it doesn't count because it's not aimed at you- see points below.


Besides, many workers are reactionary on many issues. Just because someone is working class doesn't mean they can't be criticised in a negative way. Workers aren't saints, nor are they always correct on everything.

I suppose that's why they need a "vanguard" to think for them? :rolleyes: Basically a strawman argument here....



So does this mean you don't care at all about the LGBT movement and don't think it is an important political movement in the contemporary world? Shame on you then..

No, it basically means that you always bring in gender/gender-identity politics into arguments, a bit like Sadena Mati always had to mention prison in his posts. It's irrelevant. The rest is another of your strawman/poisoning the well tactics.


What exactly are my arguments then? I don't think you are clear even about that. I just take anti-discrimination very seriously, and apparently you do not. Besides, you don't even seem to have a consistent stance on the issue debated in this thread. At first you claim people shouldn't be allowed to say things that are offensive, and then later you claim to be on the same side as those who believe in the absolute freedom of speech. It seems like you are not interested in any kind of real arguments at all, but rather simply want to use this thread as an excuse to be offensive to me...

I have maintained my position that freedom of speech is a universal right however freedoms are curtailed by other freedoms. The classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. I understand Gacky's almost Chomskyan point-of-view however I do not agree with it. I will, however, defend his right to say it freely without unwarranted and bigotted attacks from people like you.

On the other hand I disagree with your almost Orwellian idea of totalitarian control of speech and I strongly disagree with the pseudo-Stalinist bullshit of parties controlling what is and what isn't acceptable to say.


You just don't appreciate the importance of anti-discrimination, since you don't know what it's like to be a minority who is being discriminated against.

Perhaps we weren't really talking about that at that particular point in the thread? As for the rest, you like to make assumptions about people don't you? How do you know that? And what has that got to do with arguing against your authoritarian and totalitarian positions on freedom of speech?



And you think my critique of people like Adi Shankara and Conquer or Die in the past on this forum due to their queerphobia is a form of "sneakily blackmailing people" as well, right? :rolleyes: (Shankara was actually banned for transphobia and queerphobia).

No, it's not because of that- it's because before in a post to me you suddenly played the gender-identity card, saying something along the lines of "perhaps it's because I'm a trans-person"- which had nothing to do with anything being discussed and is, in my opinion, rather cowardly too. See below too-


Do you deny that the use of masculine-style/macho language is a reflection of the systematic gender inequality that exists in the world today?).

No- never did. Do you deny that using words like "chav" is symptomatic of classism and racism? Oh but it doesn't count because you obviously don't consider yourself to be a "chav". :rolleyes:


Basically either you like to talk to women in a very disrespectful way, which means you are sexist, or you don't really consider me as a woman, which means you are transphobic.

Ah- the crème de la crème. Let all readers note that this is a classic example of flawed argumentation. The question that damns the answer either way- typical of witchhunts, inquisitions and general political bullshit.

Have you never thought that people argue against you....err.... because of your arguments? But thanks for confirming what I said above all the same.


You never really say anything that is constructive to me.

Would constructive be calling people morons, lumpens and idiots etc- accusing them of non-existent prejudice or leaving cowardly neg-rep comments like "I hope you drink yourself to death you lumpenised scum" or telling them to fuck off?

Perhaps if you defended your arguments without flawed reasoning, strawmen, ad hominem attacks, bigotted assumptions about others and a whole host of other things- then perhaps the discussions would be more constructive. ;)

[RGacky3]

Obviously I will continue to argue against the notion of absolute freedom of speech.


If its not absolute freedom of speach its not free, by definition its absolute, (if a car is $500 only its not free is it?)


I used this analogy because you have a tendency to think in absolutist terms.

The world isn't black-and-white. And "freedom of speech" is context-dependent, not just "either all or nothing".


But the principle of freedom of speach is absolutist.

Its like saying no one has the right to tell you what you can wear, except you can't wear black socks, its an oxymoron.


It does if you realise how racial discrimination can negatively influence with minorities and their lives.

In the US today, sometimes gay teenagers committ suicide due to homophobic bullying. Are you suggesting that homophobic speech has nothing to do with this?


No I'm not saying it has nothing to do with this, but again, thats not an argument, its still not interfearing with his freedom.

As I said before if your gonna make that argument, then ban calling girls fat too, or calling people with acne pizza face or whatever.

Active Racial discrimination (i.e. you can't be here because your black) IS violating freedom, but calling someone a nigger is not, even if it has a profound effect.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well it makes as much sense as your "concrete" ideas about "holding the truth" etc.... You can't actually defend your own assertions here.


I never said anything about "holding the truth". Indeed, I don't even believe in "truth" in a purely abstract sense.



Society is a human construction. Arguing against logic is tantamount to admitting your arguments don't stand up. But please enlighten a poor "lumpenised scum" [your words] as to what material logic viz. workers' rights is? :rolleyes:
What's your point? Pointing out that logic is a human social construction is not invalidating logic or arguing against it. You don't even grasp my "argument", let alone refuting it.

"Lumpen" isn't a swear word or an insult. I called you in such a way because you always tend to be offensive to me, often without any good reason to do so.



There is nothing "wrong"? I'm not sure El Che would agree with you there. In whatever case, I wonder how a small haemophiliac boy was really a reactionary class enemy and a threat to the Russian Revolution? Could you explain that please?
There is nothing wrong with neutralising reactionaries in the general sense. Revolutionary socialism isn't absolutely pacifist.

As for Lenin's particular action in this specific historical context, it is debatable to some extent, but it makes no sense at all for you to reject Leninism simply on this basis.



Where you are? That's a convenient ceteris paribus clause thrown in. It's pretty classist and could be construed as racist- but then it doesn't count because it's not aimed at you- see points below.
The social context of a term obviously matters. Is there any word which is "intrinsically offensive" in purely abstract intrinsic sense, independent from all considerations of social and linguistic context?

How the hell is it "classist" anyway? The word "chav" is no more "classist" than the word "lumpen".

Calling it "racist" is even more off the mark. You would need to almost break your neck in order to "construe" such a point.



I suppose that's why they need a "vanguard" to think for them? :rolleyes: Basically a strawman argument here....
How is it a strawman? I'm pointing out the objective fact that some workers can have reactionary or wrong views on things as well, and one shouldn't just "let them off" because of their socio-economic status as members of the working class. Therefore a relatively negative word to describe a minority layer of the working class is certainly not "classist" at all.

If one worker uses such words to describe another worker, how is it really "classist"? That's like saying a Chinese person can use racist anti-Chinese terms to talk to another Chinese person.

Also, why is it that you associate "vanguardism" with totalitarianism or "Stalinism"? Didn't you know that even many left communists and anarchists believe in vanguardism to some extent too?



No, it basically means that you always bring in gender/gender-identity politics into arguments, a bit like Sadena Mati always had to mention prison in his posts. It's irrelevant. The rest is another of your strawman/poisoning the well tactics.
I wasn't making a personal point, but a general one. And it wasn't irrelevant in the context in which I brought it up.



I will, however, defend his right to say it freely without unwarranted and bigotted attacks from people like you.
When did I try to stop gacky from talking? :rolleyes:

He can say his views, I can say mine. Or does "freedom of speech" not apply to Iseul? :rolleyes:



On the other hand I disagree with your almost Orwellian idea of totalitarian control of speech and I strongly disagree with the pseudo-Stalinist bullshit of parties controlling what is and what isn't acceptable to say.
More strawman BS from you. Where the fuck did I advocate "totalitarian control of speech" at all? How is it "totalitarian control of speech" when all I have said is that society can democratically decide that certain forms of hate speech are not acceptable, even though most forms of speech would be completely free?

I thought you don't believe in "absolute" freedom of speech either? If most forms of speech are completely free, except a small minor part of hate speech, how the hell is that "totalitarian control" at all? :rolleyes:



Perhaps we weren't really talking about that at that particular point in the thread? As for the rest, you like to make assumptions about people don't you? How do you know that? And what has that got to do with arguing against your authoritarian and totalitarian positions on freedom of speech?
Well, I was arguing that certain forms of speech should be considered as unacceptable by society, since I take anti-discrimination seriously. You seem to disagree, which is why I made such a point. It's not "off-topic" at all.



No, it's not because of that- it's because before in a post to me you suddenly played the gender-identity card, saying something along the lines of "perhaps it's because I'm a trans-person"- which had nothing to do with anything being discussed and is, in my opinion, rather cowardly too. See below too-
Where did I play the "gender card"?

Just because I mentioned transgenderism doesn't mean I'm playing the "gender card" or explicitly accusing you of being transphobic (which I wasn't). What's wrong with bringing up trans issues or any other issues in a general sense in a discussion/debate where they have some relevance? I was not making a personal point. I didn't say you are offensive to me because I'm trans. (I think you are just an annoying person, period)

And what does "cowardice" have to do with anything? In what context do you mean this? I might not be reading you completely accurately here but it seems like what you are trying to say is that trans people (or any other disadvantaged minorites) stating that there should be special protection for their basic rights is somehow a "cowardly" act...:rolleyes:



No- never did. Do you deny that using words like "chav" is symptomatic of classism and racism? Oh but it doesn't count because you obviously don't consider yourself to be a "chav". :rolleyes:
Why would I consider myself to be a "chav"? :confused:

To say "chav" is racist is simply insane. And "chav" is no more "classist" than the term "lumpen", which Marx himself used. The term "chav" has never been used to describe the working class in any general sense, or indeed as a form of self-identification by workers.



Ah- the crème de la crème. Let all readers note that this is a classic example of flawed argumentation. The question that damns the answer either way- typical of witchhunts, inquisitions and general political bullshit.
Well, you were very disrespectful and offensive to me in general, that's an objective fact.

I didn't say this in itself makes your arguments invalid. But then whatever you may think of my political arguments and how you might wish to respond to me, it doesn't mean you can just be offensive to me. These are separate issues. Or can you not separate objective political debates from the personal?

Even if hypothetically my political arguments are objectively incorrect, (indeed even if hypothetically you think my arguments are ridiculous and really "hate" them) it still doesn't imply that you can respond to me in such a rude manner, does it? Or do you have no understanding of how proper polite debates should be like?



Would constructive be calling people morons, lumpens and idiots etc- accusing them of non-existent prejudice or leaving cowardly neg-rep comments like "I hope you drink yourself to death you lumpenised scum" or telling them to fuck off?
When can you stop whining and squealing about what I said to you? :rolleyes:

And for the last time, "lumpen" is not an insult or swear word.



Perhaps if you defended your arguments without flawed reasoning,
So what you perceive as "flawing political reasoning" on my part gives you the right to attack me personally? As I said, you don't seem to be able to separate out the personal from the political...



ad hominem attacks, bigotted assumptions about others
Where did I make ad hominem attacks against you? :confused::rolleyes:



and a whole host of other things- then perhaps the discussions would be more constructive. ;)
Explain why is it that I seem to be able to have constructive discussions and debates with the majority of the forum, including people I disagree with such as gacky and rev-u, and it is only with a small minority of members like yourself I seem to have problems with? :rolleyes:

For the record, I'm generally anti-sectarian so I don't like personal insults on a political forum, which I think would tend to increase sectarianism. Sectarianism is a major obstacle for the left today in general. We had some debates about religion etc a long time ago. I thought we had already settled those issues, yet in this thread you brought out the "dead horse" again. I have no real subjective desire to continue to engage in childish rounds of personal insults with you, but if you drag me into such shit, then don't sound so surprised when you get shit on your own face too.

[Queercommie Girl]

If its not absolute freedom of speach its not free, by definition its absolute, (if a car is $500 only its not free is it?)

But the principle of freedom of speach is absolutist.


I don't see things in such absolutist ways.

For me, society has the right to democratically decide what speech is acceptable and what is not. And obviously this can change too. I think "freedom of speech" is quantitative rather than qualitative. Obviously I take worker's democracy in the genuine sense very seriously. But as I see it, as long as most forms of speech are completely free, there won't be a problem in the concrete sense. In the concrete pragmatic sense (as opposed to mere abstract logical games), prohibiting some forms of hate speech will not be a threat to genuine freedom in general.



Active Racial discrimination (i.e. you can't be here because your black) IS violating freedom, but calling someone a nigger is not, even if it has a profound effect.


I just tend to put real social issues and how to combat their negative consequences before abstract philosophical arguments. I think in a genuinely democratic society, communities have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is not. The rights of the collective comes before the rights of the individual.

[RGacky3]

I don't see things in such absolutist ways.

For me, society has the right to democratically decide what speech is acceptable and what is not. And obviously this can change too. I think "freedom of speech" is quantitative rather than qualitative. Obviously I take worker's democracy in the genuine sense very seriously. But as I see it, as long as most forms of speech are completely free, there won't be a problem in the concrete sense. In the concrete pragmatic sense (as opposed to mere abstract logical games), prohibiting some forms of hate speech will not be a threat to genuine freedom in general.


I hate to use the slippery slope argument ... But there it is, once you apply speach to an area that is up to democratic control, then its absolutely no longer an individual right, then ALL AND ANY speach can be banned, including speach which you may not believe warrents it.

Thats why I say speach should be one of those things that is a right for all, and an individual right.

Again its like clothing, if you say society has the right to ban one piece of clothing, they also have the right to ban it all, clothing is no longer a personal matter.


I just tend to put real social issues and how to combat their negative consequences before abstract philosophical arguments. I think in a genuinely democratic society, communities have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is not. The rights of the collective comes before the rights of the individual.

I believe the right of the collective comes first when it comes to collective matters, however when it comes to individual matters its the right of the individual first.

[ComradeMan]

I never said anything about "holding the truth". Indeed, I don't even believe in "truth" in a purely abstract sense..

Okay--- but...


Whether something is "true" or not is not determined by how powerful or popular it is. Sometimes the "truth" is held in the hands of the relative minority, like a vanguardist party.
.

Hmmm.... and of course this party will say that everyone else is wrong and well, where is that going?


What's your point? Pointing out that logic is a human social construction is not invalidating logic or arguing against it. You don't even grasp my "argument", let alone refuting it..

It is when you say it doesn't apply to any of your illogical arguments. :laugh:


"Lumpen" isn't a swear word or an insult. I called you in such a way because you always tend to be offensive to me, often without any good reason to do so...

Well, calling people "lumpenised scum" isn't particularly a good way to make friends and I think you'll find that "lumpenproletariat" was not exactly a compliment either...:rolleyes: You're basically calling people "trash" by using that word.


"There is nothing wrong with neutralising reactionaries in the general sense. Revolutionary socialism isn't absolutely pacifist....

"neutralising"- you mean killing. The very fact that you use unspeak to describe the action says it all. :rolleyes:


"As for Lenin's particular action in this specific historical context, it is debatable to some extent, but it makes no sense at all for you to reject Leninism simply on this basis.....

I think killing children is always debatable? Don't you? Even the Bolsheviks knew it was wrong and that's why there was a bit of a cover up afterwards too.


"The social context of a term obviously matters. Is there any word which is "intrinsically offensive" in purely abstract intrinsic sense, independent from all considerations of social and linguistic context?.....

Blah, blah, blah- nice quotes to try and get out of it.


"How the hell is it "classist" anyway? The word "chav" is no more "classist" than the word "lumpen".

Because it equates low class, ignorance, poverty and bad taste and is a rather "middle-class" classist term?



"Calling it "racist" is even more off the mark. You would need to almost break your neck in order to "construe" such a point.

Because it equates low class, ignorance, poverty and bad taste with being a "gypsy boy".


"How is it a strawman? I'm pointing out the objective fact that some workers can have reactionary or wrong views on things as well, and one shouldn't just "let them off" because of their socio-economic status as members of the working class. Therefore a relatively negative word to describe a minority layer of the working class is certainly not "classist" at all..

It's a strawman because no one was arguing against that in the first place.


"If one worker uses such words to describe another worker, how is it really "classist"? That's like saying a Chinese person can use racist anti-Chinese terms to talk to another Chinese person...

Self-hate.


"Also, why is it that you associate "vanguardism" with totalitarianism or "Stalinism"? Didn't you know that even many left communists and anarchists believe in vanguardism to some extent too?

More strawmen- I'm talking about the various attitudes that you express.


"I wasn't making a personal point, but a general one. And it wasn't irrelevant in the context in which I brought it up.

:rolleyes:



"When did I try to stop gacky from talking? :rolleyes:

I didn't say he did, but you tried to undermine his position by a (cowardly) attack on his persona based on assumptions about his being a white hetero male.


"He can say his views, I can say mine. Or does "freedom of speech" not apply to Iseul? :rolleyes:

No one is stopping you, are they?


"More strawman BS from you. Where the fuck did I advocate "totalitarian control of speech" at all? How is it "totalitarian control of speech" when all I have said is that society can democratically decide that certain forms of hate speech are not acceptable, even though most forms of speech would be completely free?

:laugh:


"I thought you don't believe in "absolute" freedom of speech either? If most forms of speech are completely free, except a small minor part of hate speech, how the hell is that "totalitarian control" at all? :rolleyes:
Well, I was arguing that certain forms of speech should be considered as unacceptable by society, since I take anti-discrimination seriously. You seem to disagree, which is why I made such a point. It's not "off-topic" at all.

Where did I say that anti-discrimination wasn't a serious issue? And where did I agree with Gacky's absolutist opinion?



"Where did I play the "gender card"?

You have done it before, and here. It is assumed that when someone disagrees with you or argues against your positions it is because they have a problem with your gender identity- you did this a previous discussion with me and also you attacked Gacky in this way too.


"Just because I mentioned transgenderism doesn't mean I'm playing the "gender card" or explicitly accusing you of being transphobic (which I wasn't).

Well, your question with only two possible damning answers seemed to do the job and also your previous comments.


"And what does "cowardice" have to do with anything? In what context do you mean this? I might not be reading you completely accurately here but it seems like what you are trying to say is that trans people (or any other disadvantaged minorites) stating that there should be special protection for their basic rights is somehow a "cowardly" act...:rolleyes:

No, I am saying that your hiding behind issues and accusing people, perhaps tacitly, of being transphobic etc because they think you're argumentation sucks is cowardly debating style.


"Why would I consider myself to be a "chav"? :confused:

I didn't say you would- you seem to have a problem with comprehension. The fact that you are using a word that is offensive to some people- it just happens you don't fall into that category- stinks of hypocrisy.


"To say "chav" is racist is simply insane. And "chav" is no more "classist" than the term "lumpen", which Marx himself used. The term "chav" has never been used to describe the working class in any general sense, or indeed as a form of self-identification by workers.

See above- but Marx was not exactly very politically correct by today's standards and just because Marx may have said it 150 years ago or more does not justify use in today's world.


"Well, you were very disrespectful and offensive to me in general, that's an objective fact..

Err--- I disagreed with you and you started calling people morons etc and when you got a taste of your own medicine you started squealing.


"I didn't say this in itself makes your arguments invalid. But then whatever you may think of my political arguments and how you might wish to respond to me, it doesn't mean you can just be offensive to me. These are separate issues. Or can you not separate objective political debates from the personal?

LOL!!! Your political arguments are full of fallacious reasoning and yet when you are challenged you turn it into a personal issue or resort to ad hominem attacks- seems like you have the issues here.


Even if hypothetically my political arguments are objectively incorrect, (indeed even if hypothetically you think my arguments are ridiculous and really "hate" them) it still doesn't imply that you can respond to me in such a rude manner, does it? Or do you have no understanding of how proper polite debates should be like?

Poor little diddums. You insult people and complain when you are insulted back.


When can you stop whining and squealing about what I said to you? :rolleyes:

I am not- just pointing out your hypocrisy. ;)


And for the last time, "lumpen" is not an insult or swear word.

You can insult people without the use of swear words and, secondly, I suggest you look up what "lumpen" meant/means and its use.


So what you perceive as "flawing political reasoning" on my part gives you the right to attack me personally? As I said, you don't seem to be able to separate out the personal from the political....

FFS- you are being attacked in terms of your arguments because they suck and yet you have to get "personal" about things.


Where did I make ad hominem attacks against you? :confused::rolleyes:....

Well, where shall I begin? Not being able to understand English? Lumpenised scum? Moron? Wishing me to drink myself to death? Etc etc...


Explain why is it that I seem to be able to have constructive discussions and debates with the majority of the forum, including people I disagree with such as gacky and rev-u, and it is only with a small minority of members like yourself I seem to have problems with? :rolleyes:

Gacky basically told you to fuck off, albeit in delicate terms, too didn't he? :lol:


For the record, I'm generally anti-sectarian so I don't like personal insults on a political forum, which I think would tend to increase sectarianism. Sectarianism is a major obstacle for the left today in general.....

Which is why you launch stuff against anarchists at the drop of a hat? Which is why you always underline your "Leninism" etc..etc...

:lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

Hmmm.... and of course this party will say that everyone else is wrong and well, where is that going?


I put "truth" in inverted commas.

My point is that sometimes a minority of people can be more right than the majority in certain social contexts. Democracy doesn't always lead to "truth".

Very few people today actually are revolutionary socialists of any kind. Does this mean socialism must be wrong, because the majority of people in the world don't follow it?



It is when you say it doesn't apply to any of your illogical arguments. :laugh:
You are not making any sense at all. How is saying that "logic is a social construction" got anything to do with "my illogical arguments"?



Well, calling people "lumpenised scum" isn't particularly a good way to make friends and I think you'll find that "lumpenproletariat" was not exactly a compliment either...:rolleyes:
Just because something is not a compliment, doesn't imply it is a swear word. It's not just black-and-white.

And when did I give you the impression that I'm here to make friends?



"neutralising"- you mean killing. The very fact that you use unspeak to describe the action says it all. :rolleyes:
Are you an absolute pacifist? Because I'm certainly not, and I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of killing people in principle.



I think killing children is always debatable? Don't you? Even the Bolsheviks knew it was wrong and that's why there was a bit of a cover up afterwards too.
Some Bolsheviks opposed the act, certainly not all.

I didn't say it's not debatable, I'm saying it is foolish to write-off Leninism just because of something like this.



Blah, blah, blah- nice quotes to try and get out of it.
Are you saying the context of a word does not matter? Obviously you don't know how human languages work.



Because it equates low class, ignorance, poverty and bad taste and is a rather "middle-class" classist term?
"Middle class" technically doesn't even exist according to Marxism. Most white collar professionals who are relatively well-educated are also working class in the economic sense. It's absurd to think that only the relatively uneducated layers of workers are "real workers".

Whether or not one is working class is not related to how much beer one drinks.

Personally I don't like beer and I don't really watch a lot of football. Does this mean I'm not "working class" but "middle class" instead?

"Class" is never determined by culture or education level in Marxism.



Because it equates low class, ignorance, poverty and bad taste with being a "gypsy boy".
Most people here would disagree with your point here. (See previous pages in this thread) Most people in the world today would not even know this reference. Just because historically a certain word is derived from a particular root doesn't mean that root is still what the word means in the contemporary context.



It's a strawman because no one was arguing against that in the first place.
So if they can be criticised, and words like "lumpen" or "chav" aren't explicit insults, then what's wrong with using such terms in the criticisms of such people?



Self-hate.
So just because a worker doesn't like certain negative things which are associated with the working class in the stereotypical sense, it must be "self-hate"?



More strawmen- I'm talking about the various attitudes that you express.
How the fuck is my attitude "totalitarian", if all I have said is that I don't think "freedom of speech" should cover hate speech or discriminatory speech?

Do you disagree with such a core principle? Or are you just arguing against me for the sake of arguing? If it's the latter case, then frankly don't you have better things to do?



:rolleyes:
How is it personal? Just because I'm trans doesn't mean every time I bring up transgenderism it is personal. I made a general point about such issues, not anything to do specifically with me.



I didn't say he did, but you tried to undermine his position by a (cowardly) attack on his persona based on assumptions about his being a white hetero male.
I didn't attack him, I simply made an assumption about him based on his attitudes.

I still don't see what "cowardice" has to do with anything. Do you have the desire to prove to the world you are really "manly" and therefore "not a coward" all the time? Because I don't, and I'm not even a man anyway. If you think "attacking other people" are wrong in general, does it really matter if it's a "cowardly attack" or a "honourable attack"? I don't really think so. If one is offending someone else it's equally bad regardless of how one does it. There is no such thing as a "honourable insult".



No one is stopping you, are they?
No-one is stopping the likes of gacky either, but for some reason you always insist that I'm trying to prevent him from speaking.



:laugh:
You can laugh your head off but it doesn't mean you have any kind of reply to my point at all.

To argue against discriminatory speech is certainly not totalitarian.

Otherwise since you don't believe in "absolute freedom of speech" either, I could also label you as a totalitarian, since you seem to think if one doesn't support the absolute freedom of speech, then one must be a "totalitarian".



Where did I say that anti-discrimination wasn't a serious issue? And where did I agree with Gacky's absolutist opinion?
I didn't say you did. But frankly I don't see the point of your argument against me. You seem to be just arguing for the sake of arguing.

My point here is no other than the idea that freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute and generally discriminatory speech and hate speech should not be tolerated by society. Since you don't believe in absolute freedom of speech either I fail to see what your argument with me is in any serious objective sense.



You have done it before, and here. It is assumed that when someone disagrees with you or argues against your positions it is because they have a problem with your gender identity - you did this a previous discussion with me and also you attacked Gacky in this way too.
No I didn't say either you or gacky had a problem with my gender identity at all in this thread. I didn't accuse anyone explicitly of being transphobic at all. I only mentioned a point related to transgenderism in general.

And what do you mean "before", care to show me the links? In some cases I did accuse people for being discriminatory because frankly they were, e.g. Adi Shankara quoting directly from a right-wing Christian homophobic website.



Well, your question with only two possible damning answers seemed to do the job and also your previous comments.
That question wasn't directly accusing you of anything. It's merely pointing out that women, including trans-women, deserve to be treated with respect. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't, then you are not transphobic.



No, I am saying that your hiding behind issues
How am I "hiding behind" issues when these are actually my issues in a very real sense.

And as I told you before, just because I happen to be trans and I mentioned a point about transgenderism in the objective sense in general, doesn't imply that I was making a personal point about anything.



and accusing people, perhaps tacitly, of being transphobic etc because they think you're argumentation sucks is cowardly debating style.
What exactly is "accusing people tacitly for being transphobic"? According to your logic anyone who is simply bringing up the issue of transphobia must be accusing others for being transphobic "tacitly".

And I wouldn't say gacky thinks my arguments "sucks" in general either. We might disagree on this particular issue, but I don't think gacky has any problems with me on a personal level at all.

I don't really follow all this irrelevant accusations of "cowardice", because I don't think it applies at all. It might be how men like to talk, but I'm not a man, so stop talking to me like that.

(You might think my last words are accusing you of something again, but they are not, I'm pointing out that I'm a woman and you should talk to me like how you would talk to any woman, and I doubt you would talk to the average woman in general in such a tone)



I didn't say you would- you seem to have a problem with comprehension. The fact that you are using a word that is offensive to some people- it just happens you don't fall into that category- stinks of hypocrisy.
It's not an offensive word for me. If someone called me a chav they would be wrong of course, but I would hardly consider it to be a personal insult of some kind.



See above- but Marx was not exactly very politically correct by today's standards and just because Marx may have said it 150 years ago or more does not justify use in today's world.
I don't always follow "political correctness". I'm a Marxist after all, not a bourgeois liberal. Sometimes if Marx and contemporary political correctness happen to differ, it might indeed be that Marx is correct.



Err--- I disagreed with you and you started calling people morons etc and when you got a taste of your own medicine you started squealing.
It's one thing to call you a "moron", I mean you called my points "nonsense" and "bullshit" long before that as well, I don't see how calling you "moron" is so much worse than that, but it's quite another thing to write an entire post to me filled with nothing except explicit insults. (See the trash sub-forum) Insulting people isn't just qualitative, it's also quantitative. A low level of flaming is generally tolerated here on RevLeft, but your kind of crap is not. Just because I called you a "moron" doesn't mean you can start insulting me so much. The degree of the insults does matter.

And why is it you keep on accusing me for being "squealing"? I think tacitly and implicitly you are basically accusing me for being "cowardly" and not "manly" enough simply because I responded to your excessive levels of insults in kind with more insults, and you didn't like that.

Using a physical analogy, it's like you literally throwing hard punches at me just for giving you a push, and start accusing me for "being a *****" when I scratch you hard on the face as a result. But you are the one who started throwing around the punches.



LOL!!! Your political arguments are full of fallacious reasoning and yet when you are challenged you turn it into a personal issue or resort to ad hominem attacks- seems like you have the issues here.
As I said repeatedly, just because I mentioned transgenderism doesn't mean I'm making it a personal issue.

What if I'm not actually trans? Would that mean me bringing up the issue of transgenderism would be ok and not personal? This is very unfair because it would imply that a trans person can never bring up issues related to transgenderism, or otherwise it would be "ad hominem", just because they happen to be trans.



Poor little diddums. You insult people and complain when you are insulted back.
More like I gave people a push and started complaining when the other person literally started punching me hard. And seriously I don't see anything wrong with such an approach.



I am not- just pointing out your hypocrisy. ;)
But you are. You repeatedly complained about my insults to you, and continued to do this even after the mods warned you. You are still doing it now.

I don't like using the term "squealing" as an insult since it's implicitly sexist - after all, in general society women tend to "squeal" more than men, so it's a form of speech that's more associated with women than with men, but objectively it is indeed the case that you are the one who is "squealing" here, not me.

But typically even when you are butthurt you have to pretend to be on the more "manly" side, hence your constant use of words such as "poor little diddums", "cowardly" and "squealing" towards me.

I couldn't care less about "being manly" or "not being manly", so such use of words don't really mean anything to me.



You can insult people without the use of swear words
Non-personal forms of heavy critique and low-level flaming are actually allowed on RevLeft and treated as normal. Read the forum rules.



FFS- you are being attacked in terms of your arguments because they suck and yet you have to get "personal" about things.
So you think it's right to attack people personal just because you don't like their arguments?

And for the last time, no I didn't "get personal". Mentioning transgenderism, sexism, queer issues, and the lack of serious consideration towards discriminatory and hate speech in general etc, is certainly not "getting personal" or using "ad hominems".

Would it make any difference if I am actually a white hetero male and started saying that people don't take discrimination against minorities seriously enough? Why would my personal background make any difference to the nature and character of what I say?



Well, where shall I begin? Not being able to understand English? Lumpenised scum? Moron? Wishing me to drink myself to death? Etc etc...
Note I only used the more explicit insults after your diatribe against me, which has subsequently been trashed.

Before that, I didn't use explicit swear words towards you. Saying things like "you don't understand English" is no worse than you calling my arguments "bullshit". It's just pushing around, which is allowed here. Throwing punches around however is not.



Gacky basically told you to fuck off, albeit in delicate terms, too didn't he? :lol:
No he didn't tell me to "fuck off". I don't think he implied such a thing either.

Again you are using the same old inane points about "not being manly enough". You are not saying this explicitly but everything you've said towards me implicitly implies this: "squealing", "cowardly", "sneaky", "delicate", "poor diddums", "crying" blah, blah, blah.

For the last time, I don't give a shit about "manliness". I'm not your stereotypical image of an "honourable warrior male", nor do I want to be. Don't assume that everyone implicitly considers such a personality stereotype to be the "ideal".

Some people are actually against the use of any crude insults against women, some basically use exactly the same language to all people regardless of gender. You are probably in the second category. But frankly I don't really mind so much, and if it's really the case that gacky is refraining from using explicit insults against me because I'm a woman, why would I hold that against him? Your attempted sarcasm here makes absolutely no sense at all.

Gacky obviously had some strong disagreements with me, but he never directly insulted me. You on the other hand did. That's a fundamental difference.

If you don't believe me, you could start a thread and ask what everyone here really thinks of Iseul. I think you will find that the vast majority of people don't have a problem with me at all.



Which is why you launch stuff against anarchists at the drop of a hat? Which is why you always underline your "Leninism" etc..etc...
Everyone underlines their political tendency here on RevLeft. How come I never see you go after other people just for that?

I always launch stuff against anarchists? That's fucking non-sense. I've repeatedly said that I'm not intrinsically anti-anarchist, despite being critical of anarchism on many issues.

Just because I happen to disagree with gacky (who is an anarchist) on this particular issue, doesn't imply I'm anti-anarchist in general. Indeed, I bet you could find Leninists who agree with gacky and anarchists who agree with me. You are the one who is being sectarian and trying to make every disagreement into some kind of tendency war.

Like I said to you before on your profile, I don't know why you hate me so much, but frankly I don't care. Maybe you are just a really annoying and trollish person. After all, you are a restricted member here. I've wasted enough time with you, and I've had enough of your non-sense. You may have a lot of time to waste, but I don't, so stop spamming this thread with irrelevant personal insults against me.

[Queercommie Girl]

I hate to use the slippery slope argument ...


The "slippery slope argument" is actually a logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.



I believe the right of the collective comes first when it comes to collective matters, however when it comes to individual matters its the right of the individual first.


Another issue you have failed to address here is that I'm not arguing that personal insults in general should be banned (indeed I've used plenty of insults against other people here on RevLeft), only discriminatory insults against minority groups, disadvantaged groups, and women. For Marxists this point is very important because calling someone a "nigger" is fundamentally different from just saying "fuck you". Discriminatory remarks against disadvantaged groups are a reflection of the systematic inequality that exist under all class societies. For this reason people who advocate a classless society should prohibit such left-over trash from class society in general.

[ComradeMan]

I put "truth" in inverted commas. My point is that sometimes a minority of people can be more right than the majority in certain social contexts. Democracy doesn't always lead to "truth"..

What does "more right" mean? :rolleyes:


Are you an absolute pacifist? Because I'm certainly not, and I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of killing people in principle."..

Unless you had to do it. You should always be uncomfortable with the idea of killing people unless you are a psychopath. Even those who are engaged in combat etc agree that they don't take any real enjoyment in taking life.


Are you saying the context of a word does not matter? Obviously you don't know how human languages work..

Yawm- the whole context argument. I've heard that before... Just admit you used a bigotted word. Especially seeing as you don't consider yourself to be a chav it's a bit like the difference between black people using the "n" word to each other and err, well you or someone else.


"Middle class" technically doesn't even exist according to Marxism. Most white collar professionals who are relatively well-educated are also working class in the economic sense. It's absurd to think that only the relatively uneducated layers of workers are "real workers".

The Queen of England works and pays taxes too..... :laugh: No one said anything about the relatively uneducated layers of workers being the real ones- nice strawman. As for Middle Class not really existing,-

"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat."
http://www.marxist.net/marx/m2frame.htm?workingclass.htm

Apart from that, the word chav is predominantly used as a middle-class insult towards those perceived to be lower than them. It's classist and it has racist origins- and not in ancient history either.


I still don't see what "cowardice" has to do with anything. Do you have the desire to prove to the world you are really "manly" and therefore "not a coward" all the time? Because I don't, and I'm not even a man anyway. No-one is stopping the likes of gacky either, but for some reason you always insist that I'm trying to prevent him from speaking...

And why is it you keep on accusing me for being "squealing"? I think tacitly and implicitly you are basically accusing me for being "cowardly" and not "manly" enough simply because I responded to your excessive levels of insults in kind with more insults, and you didn't like that.

Using a physical analogy, it's like you literally throwing hard punches at me just for giving you a push, and start accusing me for "being a *****" when I scratch you hard on the face as a result. But you are the one who started throwing around the punches.


More assumptions. Why? Can only men not be cowardly? What a sexist comment- ironically.


You can laugh your head off but it doesn't mean you have any kind of reply to my point at all...

:laugh::laugh:


I don't like using the term "squealing" as an insult since it's implicitly sexist - after all, in general society women tend to "squeal" more than men, .

More sexist comments--- what nonsense. You really do deal in stereotypes.


But typically even when you are butthurt you have to pretend to be on the more "manly" side, hence your constant use of words such as "poor little diddums", "cowardly" and "squealing" towards me..

More like because you are being infantile.... derp.

[Revolution starts with U]

Does the Queen pay taxes?
Yes, in 1992 The Queen offered to pay income tax and capital gains tax on a voluntary basis. Since 1993, her personal income has been taxable as for any other UK taxpayer.

I wish i could arbitrarily choose to pay taxes :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

I wish i could arbitrarily choose to pay taxes :rolleyes:


I don't think she used to. I think the British Parliament decided she should... :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually, "in 1992 the Queen offered to pay taxes on a voluntary basis."

[ComradeMan]

Actually, "in 1992 the Queen offered to pay taxes on a voluntary basis."


Hmmm.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/royal-fortune-stays-secret-the-queen-has-been-forced-into-paying-taxes-and-the-last-thing-she-wants-to-do-is-to-give-the-impression-to-the-people-that-there-is-a-tax-regime-for-her-and-another-one-for-the-ordinary-punter-1472403.html

[Revolution starts with U]

There's nothing that irks me more than when someone just links something because they think it agrees with them, but didn't even read the thing....


THE voluntary arrangements by which the Queen and the Prince of Wales will pay income tax



John Major assured MPs yesterday that Britain would not be getting a cut-price, bargain basement monarchy as a result of the voluntary agreement by the Queen



James II came to a sad end from ignoring public opinion, and there was in Lord Airlie's statement a repeated wish that these concessions help the House of Windsor escape the fate of the Stuarts



The new arrangement was criticised by some Labour MPs. Dennis Skinner said: 'The Queen has been forced into paying taxes as a result of the pressure outside this place and the last thing she wants to do is to give the impression to the people outside that there is a tax regime for her and another one for the ordinary punter.' But Lord Airlie justified the Queen's partial exemption from inheritance tax on the grounds that 'in order to be constitutionally impartial, the Sovereign must have, and be seen to have, an appropriate degree of financial independence.'


Don't just link articles to me, thinking I won't read them :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

...

Never heard of jumping before you are pushed? :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

Don't just link articles to me, thinking I won't read them :thumbup1:

And old Bud trick that his apprentice apparently picked up.

[ComradeMan]

And old Bud trick that his apprentice apparently picked up.

Unlike someone else we know who preaches scientific facts etc until they don't suit his arguments drawn from polls in Vanity Fair. ;)

[RGacky3]

Nope, if they don't suit my arguments I abandon those argments.

[ComradeMan]

Nope, if they don't suit my arguments I abandon those argments.

:laugh:

Whatever...!

[Ele'ill]

And old Bud trick that his apprentice apparently picked up.


When has Bud ever posted links?

[Tik-Tok]

Yes it does. That is the point of free speech. It means you can say controverisal things without punishment. That is the point, there are no guidelines because it is FREE speech. On a site like this, it's not included as it it is in private domain.

The idea of free speech is limitless. You DO NOT have a right not to be offended. If you dislike free speech, you should move to a country which hampers it.