Admin Actions. Concerns.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I have noticed how many people are getting restricted and banned. I don't know about the background to each case, but it seems there are quite a few cases of immature, emotional, or privilege abusing bans by the admins. The user Hart.eBest was restricted on June 12th by admin cmoney for a foolish post... posted on May 24th!

User Hart.eBest joined only 7 days before posting that ignorant post on May 24, upon which i took it over the last month as a personal project to frequently PM him with important basic outlines and explanations of scientific socialism. He seemed quite enthusiastic and kept responding, asking more questions on my explanations and reading material recommendations.

This restriction led Hart.eBest to write a silly PM response to admin cmoney upon which he was banned on June 13th. The admins should see to it that all users should have respect for them based on rational administrative decisions in the interest of the development of the forum; not domination, undetailed examination of profile members' ideological development, rash restrictions and bans.

[The Douche]

This is a forum for revolutionaries, and not a forum for reactionaries to be convinced. We don't tolerate them. If you have a problem with my administrative actions, I welcome a PM to discuss them.

And no, the thread is not closed, so other parties need not cry about the "authoritarian" actions of the BA.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

This is a forum for revolutionaries, and not a forum for reactionaries to be convinced. We don't tolerate them. If you have a problem with my administrative actions, I welcome a PM to discuss them.

And no, the thread is not closed, so other parties need not cry about the "authoritarian" actions of the BA.

It's not necessarily only your action against Hart.eBest, but just a general observation of the behavior of admins here. If you are frustrated with a user's opinion (such a silly opinion that "communism is utopia, like children" etc.), then you should first look if the person has changed within the last month and ask other members if they have had contact with them and how their ideological progress is going if you are not sure yourself. Had you asked me for instance about this user Hart.eBest, i could have told you that he was a reactionary ignoramous first who then had frequent PM discussions and questions to genuinely try and educate himself on socialism.

[The Douche]

It's not necessarily only your action against Hart.eBest, but just a general observation of the behavior of admins here. If you are frustrated with a user's opinion (such a silly opinion that "communism is utopia, like children" etc.), then you should first look if the person has changed within the last month and ask other members if they have had contact with them and how their ideological progress is going if you are not sure yourself. Had you asked me for instance about this user Hart.eBest, i could have told you that he was a reactionary ignoramous first who then had frequent PM discussions and questions to genuinely try and educate himself on socialism.

If he wants to call people faggots he's gonna have to do it somewhere else, simple as.


This message board is not geared towards convincing people, its here for people who are already radicals to discuss shit, and that is how its always gonna be as long as I have a say.

If somebody is on here spouting racist/sexist/homophobic/generally reactionary shit then that is gonna alienate potentential posters, and fuck that.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

If he wants to call people faggots he's gonna have to do it somewhere else, simple as.


This message board is not geared towards convincing people, its here for people who are already radicals to discuss shit, and that is how its always gonna be as long as I have a say.

If somebody is on here spouting racist/sexist/homophobic/generally reactionary shit then that is gonna alienate potentential posters, and fuck that.

Aha, well, i was in the process of radicalising him and with time i think he would have become used to revleft culture of respect. Where do you expect people to radicalise if not revleft, the capitalist state's schools, out of the air?

I agree that we don't want reactionary shit on the forums as it distracts from the important role of contentual discussion, but we should watch how long people have been here before banning them, as even in the revolutionary left there are reactionary views spread that need to be seeded out through arguments, not throwing them back to the reactionary capitalist world.

[Drosophila]

It certainly wasn't a "silly little thing". "*****" and "faggot" are highly offensive terms. Also, from what I could see harte.beest wasn't some 13 year old kid that didn't know better. Unless hardcore Stalin apologia is popular with kids all of a sudden.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It certainly wasn't a "silly little thing". "*****" and "faggot" are highly offensive terms. Also, from what I could see harte.beest wasn't some 13 year old kid that didn't know better. Unless hardcore Stalin apologia is popular with kids all of a sudden.

Of course those are ignorant and offensive words, but it is capitalist culture to use words like this. This capitalist ignorant culture needs to be actively fought by us revolutionaries, and not emotionally raged upon because we disagree with it; we need to actually argue with logic and reason why this word choice should not be used as it serves to to divide the working class and is hence counter-revolutionary.

[Per Levy]

And no, the thread is not closed, so other parties need not cry about the "authoritarian" actions of the BA.

like every other thread that tried to discuss ba issues since the december thingies, right?

but really whatever, mods/admins wont change their behaviour, happens. everything is said about this and repeating things wont change a thing. just dont take the internet and especially revleft to serious.

[Lynx]

RevLeft is private property in case anyone has forgotten.

[Prometeo liberado]

Unless hardcore Stalin apologia is popular with kids all of a sudden

Lets not pretend like we all dont know what the real issue is here, supposed "Stalinist" or ML witchhunting. If the kid did the same stupid stuff yet laced it with "hardcore" Trot apologia I doubt we would be talking. Maybe it's me.


RevLeft is private property in case anyone has forgotten.

Ya, I get it.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, one thing i don't understand (so what if it's "private property", us leftists are congregating here on a forum in which the truth and facts should be openly and collectively debated) is how and why this forum is structured the way it is? Why do the selected admins have individual power to autocratically restrict or ban someone? Why don't we have selected admins that have to counsel among each other and discuss each case before having the power to ban someone, like a democratic vote within the "vanguard" of admins to Ban a user?

[Positivist]

RevLeft is private property in case anyone has forgotten.

Are you serious? Oh so I guess we better respect the divinely granted property of the Revleft capitalists then!

[Prometeo liberado]

So long as many of us are paying to keep this site up I would be remiss if I did not advocate some sort of representation such as Workers-Control-Over-Prod has mentioned. The Admins, I feel, suffer from the malaise that one can fall into when there is little/no accountability and the easiest way to deal with a situation is a quick banning based on obscure and often arbitrary "rules". Accountability would breath much needed life into this place. Pretty sure.


And no, the thread is not closed, so other parties need not cry about the "authoritarian" actions of the BA

I don't even want to start on how condescending this sounds, and as I will give you the benefit of the doubt I'll leave it at that.

[Positivist]

Can't we open administrative responsibility to the entire revleft community? Isn't it appropriate that a socialist organization, should operate democratically? I understand that moderation must be performed by individuals, though why can't the policies of moderation, as well as the resulting actions of moderation be formedand decided through the collective discussion of our community? Maybe only include committed users, or maybe just include current admins and committed users to a greater extent, but definitely don't exclude everyone but the admins.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Can't we open administrative responsibility to the entire revleft community? Isn't it appropriate that a socialist organization, should operate democratically? I understand that moderation must be performed by individuals, though why can't the policies of moderation, as well as the resulting actions of moderation be formedand decided through the collective discussion of our community? Maybe only include committed users, or maybe just include current admins and committed users to a greater extent, but definitely don't exclude everyone but the admins.

Although I actually like the idea, RevLeft is hardly a "socialist organisation". It's a place on the internet where people with abstractly "leftist" ideas can discuss.

[Positivist]

Although I actually like the idea, RevLeft is hardly a "socialist organisation". It's a place on the internet where people with abstractly "leftist" ideas can discuss.

I suppose your correct though I still feel that my argument stands. If we are truly a forum for the discussion of abstractly left wing ideas, shouldn't we operate on left wing principles?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I suppose your correct though I still feel that my argument stands. If we are truly a forum for the discussion of abstractly left wing ideas, shouldn't we operate on left wing principles?

*shrug* I dunno, it's not really that important to me that the rules are based on "left wing principles". In a sense they already are, when it comes to rules for bannings, restrictions etc. It's more important that the rules and the BA work properly, not that they're based on certain principles

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

*shrug* I dunno, it's not really that important to me that the rules are based on "left wing principles". In a sense they already are, when it comes to rules for bannings, restrictions etc. It's more important that the rules and the BA work properly, not that they're based on certain principles

What is the point of having "left wing principles" if they won't even work on an internet-forum?

[Zukunftsmusik]

What is the point of having "left wing principles" if they won't even work on an internet-forum?

I'm not sure what you mean

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm not sure what you mean

You said that the BA must just work, why can't it "just work" on left wing principles? What is the point of even having left wing principles if they don't work on a simple internet forum?

[Positivist]

*shrug* I dunno, it's not really that important to me that the rules are based on "left wing principles". In a sense they already are, when it comes to rules for bannings, restrictions etc. It's more important that the rules and the BA work properly, not that they're based on certain principles

Well if they aren't working properly than shouldn't there br a change in the mechanism of their operation? Furthermore what is your definition of "work properly." I would define it as eliminating counterproductive elements of a discussion and of discussions in general, and of promoting productive elements. But since I'm not an absolutist I don't think that the admins have unconditional authority on what is counterproductive and what isn't, so I believe that we as a group should determine which elements are harmful and which ones productive.

[Zukunftsmusik]

You said that the BA must just work, why can't it "just work" on left wing principles? What is the point of even having left wing principles if they don't work on a simple internet forum?

There's no point. Principles are stupid. (Well, usually it is, but I guess one should have certain principles.)

Look, I don't propose an idea of how the BA should function, my point is just that if the so called "left-wing principles" show to be inefficient/stupid/not very functional/whatever, they should be scrapped. That's about it.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Well if they aren't working properly than shouldn't there br a change in the mechanism of their operation? Furthermore what is your definition of "work properly." I would define it as eliminating counterproductive elements of a discussion and of discussions in general, and of promoting productive elements. But since I'm not an absolutist I don't think that the admins have unconditional authority on what is counterproductive and what isn't, so I believe that we as a group should determine which elements are harmful and which ones productive.

As I said, I agree to a large extent. But I think such changes that you mention should be based in a thought that it's better for the forum (that it will "work better"), rather than principles. As we all know, this isn't a socialist organisation, it's an internet forum. You could argue that by keeping more people involved in moderating/administrating, there would be more of a "policing the police" culture, hindering not-so-fair bans etc. That's a more productive way to argue for it, imo, than some abstract principles about "horizontal organisation structure" or whatever

[Positivist]

There's no point. Principles are stupid. (Well, usually it is, but I guess one should have certain principles.)

Look, I don't propose an idea of how the BA should function, my point is just that if the so called "left-wing principles" show to be inefficient/stupid/not very functional/whatever, they should be scrapped. That's about it.

Ok I definitely agree that if left wing principles were inefficient we should abandon them, but I don't believe that that is the case. On the contrary I believe that the principles currently guiding the operation of this site are inefficient.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

As I said, I agree to a large extent. But I think such changes that you mention should be based in a thought that it's better for the forum (that it will "work better"), rather than principles. As we all know, this isn't a socialist organisation, it's an internet forum. You could argue that by keeping more people involved in moderating/administrating, there would be more of a "policing the police" culture, hindering not-so-fair bans etc. That's a more productive way to argue for it, imo, than some abstract principles about "horizontal organisation structure" or whatever

Well this site is run ,generally, by socialists. So why not rule it with "left wong principles" rather than the , in my opinion, horrible way it's run now.
I think Socialism in one Forum can work.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Ok I definitely agree that if left wing principles were inefficient we should abandon them, but I don't believe that that is the case. On the contrary I believe that the principles currently guiding the operation of this site are inefficient.

Of course, principles that don't work in real life should be scrapped, regardless of being "left wing" or not

[Hermes]

It certainly wasn't a "silly little thing". "*****" and "faggot" are highly offensive terms. Also, from what I could see harte.beest wasn't some 13 year old kid that didn't know better. Unless hardcore Stalin apologia is popular with kids all of a sudden.

To be honest, not really. What's offensive is the intent behind the words. When you quoted ***** and faggot just now, no one probably thought it was offensive, because all you were doing was reiterating what the earlier problem was. If ***** and faggot were offensive words, wouldn't they remain offensive regardless of what context they're used in?

Maybe we should focus on educating those who are willing to be educated, instead of just segregating them to a separate subforum where learning is largely impossible because the mindset of most members here going into OI is "Hey, look, a fascist sanctuary! Time to troll!"

--

I could be wrong, but it just seems counterintuitive to me that all we do is hope for people who are already revolutionaries to wander in, instead of attempting to gain some for our camp.

Then again, I've never run a forum, so I dunno.

[bcbm]

Can't we open administrative responsibility to the entire revleft community? Isn't it appropriate that a socialist organization, should operate democratically? I understand that moderation must be performed by individuals, though why can't the policies of moderation, as well as the resulting actions of moderation be formedand decided through the collective discussion of our community? Maybe only include committed users, or maybe just include current admins and committed users to a greater extent, but definitely don't exclude everyone but the admins.

revleft used to do this. it didnt end well.


You could argue that by keeping more people involved in moderating/administrating, there would be more of a "policing the police" culture, hindering not-so-fair bans etc.

you'd think that but actually it was just lots of witch hunt and weeks long bitter fights that made everyone hate each other and made the 'administrative' section more popular than the political boards

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Direct Democracy in a forum of this type, might be a hindrance to the purging of revisionist (oh, i forgot... wrong forum) or rather reactionary views on the forum. I have no problem with representative democracy for this type of forum, but certain admin members seem to have been frustrated with the organisation and effects of the "vanguard" of admins on revleft.

I propose that the admins try to organise a democratic vanguard of admins, or representative admins, to purge reactionary users based on resolute findings about these and collective democratic decision of admins on restrictive measures, not privilege abusing outbursts.

[Positivist]

revleft used to do this. it didnt end well.



you'd think that but actually it was just lots of witch hunt and weeks long bitter fights that made everyone hate each other and made the 'administrative' section more popular than the political boards

Hmm, that is interesting. Is it possible that other factors underrode the previous attempt at democratization of the forum? And if not, could we atleast bring more accountability to the admins? Perhaps we could directly elect representatives to perform as admins. I know we currently work on the reputation system, but thanking a post is different than keeping an admin modest once they have already reached their position. If necessary the nomination system can even work on the premise that only members with a certainamountnof experience or reputation can be elected to the position of admin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Hmm, that is interesting. Is it possible that other factors underrode the previous attempt at democratization of the forum? And if not, could we atleast bring more accountability to the admins? Perhaps we could directly elect representatives to perform as admins. I know we currently work on the reputation system, but thanking a post is different than keeping an admin modest once they have already reached their position. If necessary the nomination system can even work on the premise that only members with a certainamountnof experience or reputation can be elected to the position of admin.

No, that would mean that the only ones with the most of funny one-liners (who get shitloads of reputation) can get to be admin.

[Bronco]

I like that the BA has zero tolerance for discrimination and stuff but they do jump the gun sometimes and are far too quick to ban people imo. It sorta seems like Admin just consider revlefts status as "number 1 leftist board" as untouchable, and think that the position as the biggest forum of this kind is secure, which may be true but it doesn't mean it's not to the detriment of the site to ban long standing members which actually make good contributions. I know being an Admin on a place like this must be a fucking hard job sometimes and everything, and I don't really care about it being made more "democratic" or more leftist and stuff, but still.. there doesn't necessarily always need to be such a gung ho response just to stupid shit

[Positivist]

No, that would mean that the only ones with the most of funny one-liners (who get shitloads of reputation) can get to be admin.

Yes I was originally going to bring that up but I am glad that you did. I say elected admins.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

We could simply have representative democratically elected admins, but i find this a stupid method, admins should have all power as this is the most effective control over the board and keeping it free from reactionaries, but there needs to be at least some kind of reduction of the privilege of individual admins.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I think there basically and simply needs to be a cooperation among the admins to watch out what each are doing. This could be done by several ways, the first that comes to mind of course, is that they should have a quick poll over 24 hours before banning someone, and majority says yes. Restriction priviliges i guess we can deal with individual admins having, but bans are quite a different matter.

[Positivist]

We could simply have representative democratically elected admins, but i find this a stupid method, admins should have all power as this is the most effective control over the board and keeping it free from reactionaries, but there needs to be at least some kind of reduction of the privilege of individual admins.

How does electing admins limit their power? It just makes them accountable for mistakes. If an admin consistently fails to perform their duties, then they can be recalled or not re-elected.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

How does electing admins limit their power? It just makes them accountable for mistakes. If an admin consistently fails to perform their duties, then they can be recalled or not re-elected.

Yes, it is stupid. Admins should cooperate (Vanguard democracy) or follow certain methods and rules before being able to ban someone (Republicanism). So either some rules are voted on, on how and when admins have individual power to ban someone, or admins analyse cases and have no individual privileges but act on these things as a small collective. We are starting to see classes develop on revleft, not a cool thing. Admins are increasingly viewed by users as a bureaucratic privileged and power abusing caste.

[bcbm]

Hmm, that is interesting. Is it possible that other factors underrode the previous attempt at democratization of the forum?

i think it was just the result of a bunch of more or less anonymous people having something to fight over on the internet


And if not, could we atleast bring more accountability to the admins? Perhaps we could directly elect representatives to perform as admins.its been discussed before. never gonna happen, at least not with the current admin team.


follow certain methods and rules before being able to ban someone

there are rules and methods for the admins and mods to follow, and a lot of actions are discussed at length before action is taken

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

i think it was just the result of a bunch of more or less anonymous people having something to fight over on the internet



its been discussed before. never gonna happen, at least not with the current admin team.

Why not?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

i think it was just the result of a bunch of more or less anonymous people having something to fight over on the internet

its been discussed before. never gonna happen, at least not with the current admin team.



there are rules and methods for the admins and mods to follow, and a lot of actions are discussed at length before action is taken

Well, make more rules then, because the existing rules are obviously not cutting individual privileges enough.

[Revolution starts with U]

ITT: people discuss how to reform private property :thumbup1:

[Positivist]

I think that Workers-Control-Over-Production is saying that not just rules should be discussed extensively, but the application of rules. Like discussing bans by the admins as a group instead of individual admin power to ban. I would still prefer representation but I will take your word that's it is not going to happen, and bcbm I appreciate that you are responding to our concerns.

[bcbm]

Why not?

just how it is. some of the admins were around during ye olden days when we had a sort of representative administrative group and they basically thought it was chaos and shitty and closed it down. since then theyve basically made the 'democratic' functions of the board more constrained to where mods are voted in by mods and admins are nominated and voted on only by the admins. so not really seeing a return to anything like previous, especially after some abortive attempts since then.


I think that Workers-Control-Over-Production is saying that not just rules should be discussed extensively, but the application of rules. Like discussing bans by the admins as a group instead of individual admin power to ban. I would still prefer representation but I will take your word that's it is not going to happen, and bcbm I appreciate that you are responding to our concerns.

like i said, most decisions even minor ones are usually discussed by the ba team before any decisions are made. if there is a lot of disagreement about seemingly clear cut cases after the fact they are revisited and discussed. unfortunately this all happens behind 'closed doors' and members of the ba aren't allowed to discuss particulars with the rest of the board, so i think things seem more arbitrary than they are sometimes

[Hermes]

Am I the only one getting the impression that many of the moderators either dislike or view the current admin team as conservative (in the sense of keeping with tradition) or...vain (maybe not the right word, can't come up with what I want today)?

Of course, the only thing I'm basing this on is hindsight's post and bcbm's statement earlier in the thread that it probably won't happen with the current mod team.

Sorry if I'm making a big deal out of nothing, though.

--

bcbm's post above mine kind of clears up what I said, never mind.

[Lynx]

Is it necessary to have discussions behind closed doors and be sworn to secrecy?

[bcbm]

yes

[Revolution starts with U]

Sure is if you don't want the community to take part in or know of the mechanization of governance.

[ComradeOm]

you'd think that but actually it was just lots of witch hunt and weeks long bitter fights that made everyone hate each other and made the 'administrative' section more popular than the political boardsThankfully the new administration has put an end to all that...

Honestly - and I say this as someone who quit the CC in disgust - our current glorious overlords make the olden days look, well, golden. I can't think of a single episode of CC drama that compares to the annual purges and bloodletting that has accompanied the creation of 'the BA'. I can't think of any time prior to the latter's arrival when so many good users were driven away from the site. How can you talk about "witch hunts" in the light of the 'discovery' of 'fascist infiltration' during the last purge?

If shutting down the CC was supposed to end the drama or usher in a more efficient administration then I think enough time has passed to state conclusively that it has failed. And failed badly. But hey, we've all known this for a long time

So yeah, let's stop slating the CC for 'drama' or the like when the latest incarnation is no better. It was far from perfect but it can't be slated on those grounds, not by a current mod


Am I the only one getting the impression that many of the moderators either dislike or view the current admin team as conservative (in the sense of keeping with tradition) or...vain (maybe not the right word, can't come up with what I want today)?They all rally round in the end. Tip: if you want a purple or red name then just vehemently defend the administration when the next round of purges starts

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Revleft's principles are: see a reactionary/apolitical/ignorant person, ban him.

They should be: see a reactionary/apolitical/ignorant person, teach him.

[Revolution starts with U]

Thankfully the new administration has put an end to all that...

Honestly - and I say this as someone who quit the CC in disgust - our current glorious overlords make the olden days look, well, golden. I can't think of a single episode of CC drama that compares to the annual purges and bloodletting that has accompanied the creation of 'the BA'. I can't think of any time prior to the latter's arrival when so many good users were driven away from the site. How can you talk about "witch hunts" in the light of the 'discovery' of 'fascist infiltration' during the last purge?

If shutting down the CC was supposed to end the drama or usher in a more efficient administration then I think enough time has passed to state conclusively that it has failed. And failed badly. But hey, we've all known this for a long time

So yeah, let's stop slating the CC for 'drama' or the like when the latest incarnation is no better. It was far from perfect but it can't be slated on those grounds, not by a current mod

They all rally round in the end. Tip: if you want a purple or red name then just vehemently defend the administration when the next round of purges starts

Isn't that how it always works tho? Democracy proves messy, so a clique of tyrants come in to make it better. They then do worse, but call it official and act like it's okay.

It's Russia all over again! :lol:

[Hermes]

I wish we had more of a response from the admins, since the topic kind of concerns them.

[Invader Zim]

revleft used to do this. it didnt end well.



you'd think that but actually it was just lots of witch hunt and weeks long bitter fights that made everyone hate each other and made the 'administrative' section more popular than the political boards

And it is now worse. Far worse. It seems we have a couple of accrimonious periods every year, in which an unaccountable BA conduct a witchhunt/purge following some huge drama - atleast 50% of which occurs behind closed doors, a fact which perpetuates the other 50% of the drama. And it is all so bitter and personal and fuelled by grudges, and if hindsight's recent PMs are to go by, we may be due another banning(s) under the charge of rape apologism as a mask for petty personal issues.

I've deliberatelty avoided talking to at least two admins for several months now because i don't want any further part of it.

[Revolution starts with U]

And it is now worse. Far worse. It seems we have a couple of accrimonious periods every year, in which an unaccountable BA conduct a witchhunt/purge following some huge drama - atleast 50% of which occurs behind closed doors, a fact which perpetuates the other 50% of the drama. And it is all so bitter and personal and fuelled by grudges, and if hindsight's recent PMs are to go by, we may be due another banning(s) under the charge of rape apologism as a mask for petty personal issues.

I've deliberatelty avoided talking to at least two admins for several months now because i don't want any further part of it.

I bet I have a good idea of who those two are ;)

[Invader Zim]

I bet I have a good idea of who those two are ;)

Shit ain't worth the hassel. Seems better all round if I don't talk to them or read their posts, that way they don't bother me and I don't get in their hair.

[Omsk]

Be like me and don't talk about such subjects, that is why i am never going to get banned.

[Ismail]

In the December "purge" over 50% of those banned were fascists who in the majority of cases (and we are talking over 15 users) had probably less than 50 posts combined, 99% of them being in Opposing Ideologies. I can list them if you'd like; they themselves were practically nonentities in the community. Considering that a DDoS attack struck the forum, I don't think what we did was unjustified.

[Revolution starts with U]

Be like me and don't talk about such subjects, that is why i am never going to get banned.

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel

(A bit of hyperbole. It's not as if not being allowed to post on a forum is suffering and humiliating in the same sense. Yet the point still stands)

[Manic Impressive]

Be like me and don't talk about such subjects, that is why i am never going to get banned.
I agree with this entirely this is the way to behave on Revleft, with fear and suspicion. Except this will not guarantee you safety from the ban hammer just decrease your chances.

[Ismail]

There's nothing to be afraid about. Not like the events of December were some random act of madness and that anyone could be targeted. Probably a good idea if you weren't in love with forum games though.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I agree with this entirely this is the way to behave on Revleft, with fear and suspicion. Except this will not guarantee you safety from the ban hammer just decrease your chances.

Why keep quiet as a wise man once said:
First the BA came for the Stalinists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Stalinist.

Then the BA came for the Trotskyists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Trotskyist.

Then the BA came for the Anarchists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an Anarchist.

Then the BA came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Q]

This thread is another drama in the making and prepares another round of infractions and bans. Nothing will be accomplished.

If you don't support the way things are going: Don't donate, go to other communities such as LibCom or just protest in silence by not participating in the CU (for those who are eligible to the CU).

But please stick to the politics. There is nothing to be liberated on Revleft.

[Invader Zim]

Why keep quiet as a wise man once said:
First the BA came for the Stalinists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Stalinist.

Then the BA came for the Trotskyists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Trotskyist.

Then the BA came for the Anarchists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an Anarchist.

Then the BA came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

He was a hard-right, anti-semitic, evangelical christian who only opposed the Nazis because of their policy towards religion.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He was a hard-right, anti-semitic, evangelical christian who only opposed the Nazis because of their policy towards religion.

It's not like I base my politics around that statement, or the bloke who wrote it.:rolleyes:
Oh, and if you mean the 'a wise man said'-part. I almost always say that when I quote something while not beingfully serious about it.

[Invader Zim]

It's not like I base my politics around that statement, or the bloke who wrote it.:rolleyes:


Fair enough, just thought you should know that the word 'wise' is not the best way of describing Martin Niemoller.

[Ismail]

Fair enough, just thought you should know that the word 'wise' is not the best way of describing Martin Niemoller.From the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

Niemöller, Martin Born Jan. 14, 1892, in Lippstadt. Public figure of the German Federal Republic, antifascist, participant in the Partisans of Peace movement, pastor of the Evangelical Church.

During World War I, Niemöller was a submarine officer. In 1919 he took up the study of theology in Münster. In 1924 he became a clergyman. In 1937, Niemöller was arrested for his opposition to Nazism. He was held in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp until 1941, when he was transferred to Dachau. He was later moved to the southern Tirol and remained there until he was liberated in 1945. From 1947 to 1964 he was the head of the Evangelical Church in Hessen and Nassau. From 1961 to 1968 he was one of the presidents of the World Council of Churches. He has visited the USSR a number of times. Since 1957 he has been president of the German Peace Society (War Resisters’ International). Since 1969, Niemöller has been a member of the Presidium of the World Peace Council. He was awarded the Joliot-Curie Gold Medal of Peace in 1965. In 1966 he received the Lenin Prize for Strengthening Peace Between Nations.He seems to have started off a generic right-winger but moved in a better direction after the 40's. If he was "hard-right" by the 60's he could have turned down the Lenin Peace Prize offer (as others had done in the past.) I also doubt a "hard-right" person would join an international organization seen as one of the premier "Soviet fronts" of the Cold War period.

In any case, after consulting with Q, I've decided to close this thread. There is nothing to be "liberated" on RevLeft, as he said, and this thread can only degrade from where it currently is into misplaced nostalgia for the CC or other things meant to denigrate the BA.