Unfair Restriction 6

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Begin your arguments here as to why you believe you have been unfairly restricted.

No flaming, no trolling,and no off topic discussions.


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

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

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

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

Have a lovely day.

- August

[l'Enfermé]

I made a rather lengthy post back in April, describing why my restriction is unfair and should be overturned, but it simply disappeared within days, I've asked in the last thread why this happened, and I've sent out PMs to Admins, and so far I've received no answer. Who deleted my post, and why(and more importantly, when will my senseless restriction be overturned?)?

[Dean]

Were the posts outside of the "unfair restriction" thread? did you post threads and/or posts with redundant topics or short posts? Did you post sensitive or personal data, or flame?

Whatever the reason, your best bet is probably to post an explanation now, especially since there is a new "unfair restrictions" thread. It will be more visible to members, including mods.

[l'Enfermé]

No, none of that, no sensitive personal data or flaming, the whole thing was written in a very calm and respectful and conciliatory tone(I've never received any infractions or even verbal warnings for misconduct or anything). Whatever, I'll just write up something new whenever I have time.

[l'Enfermé]

So here's my official restriction appeal thingy. The other one I wrote was longer and made more sense but I'm too exhausted right now to write anything better than this.

In March, cmoney sent me a PM which said

This PM is to inform you that you have been restricted to the opposing ideologies section of RevLeft. The reason is your pro-imperialist position. If you wish to appeal your restriction this is the appropriate thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-res...025/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restriction-v-t140025/index.html)I replied with

What? That's ridiculous...where have I ever shown a pro-Imperialist stance? Are you sure you've got the right guy? At least tell me what I posted that makes me appear a pro-Imperialist, maybe I can clear it up...this doesn't make any sense to me... And he replied with

You should make a well thought out post in the thread I linked, that way all the members of the mod and admin teams can look at them. Honestly, I'm unlikely to change my mind once I've acted, so your best bet is to make a visible, clear, pointed argument, so that others can get an idea for why I may have made a mistake.

This post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...05&postcount=9 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2396805&postcount=9)), where you condone intervention on behalf of the Syrian state is what sealed the deal for me. 20 days later, cmoney also added this in "Unfair Restriction thread 5" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2420680&postcount=481), saying that a comment I made where I said that imperialism exposes backwardness to an extent(i.e the Imperialist states tend to prey on societies and countries that are much less developed) is another reason why I was restricted and he also says I'm pro-Russian imperialism.

My attitude on the Syria thing is this: While Assad's regime is pretty horrible even by Middle Eastern standards, the various sectarian Islamists and foreign mercenaries are even more horrible. The progressive opposition to Assad has been completely sidelined by these lunatics. These death squads in Syria, local and foreign Islamists, foreign mercenaries, that are trained, equipped, funded, sheltered and payed for by NATO and America's satellite Arab states and other allies are running around sniping random people and cutting the throats of children and then blaming it on imaginary pro-Assad militias made up of bodybuilders on steroids that cover their bodies in Assad family tattoos and that are blindly loyal because they are chosen for their low IQs(I'm not making this shit up!). If these fucks take over every Alawite that doesn't flee from Syria is going to be shot or have their throat cut(Sunnis consider Alawites to be heretics, and rightly so, Alawism is to Islam what Christianity is to Judaism, Alawites consider Jesus, Mohammad, Plato, Ali, Socrates, and other to be manifestations of God on Earth and are into all other sorts of stuff that's pretty unislamic). On the other hand, when a suicide bomber killed Assad's brother-in-law and his Defense and Interior ministers, I yelled out "that's what you deserve you bastards" in Chechen at my computer screen a few days ago.

Anyways, I wrote that I would approve of an "international intervention" on the side of the Syrian government, i.e international intervention against the various armed gangs running around killing civilians like American death squads in Latin America used to. Cmoney misinterpeted this as me saying I would support Sino-Russian intervention on the side of Assad, which wasn't what I meant. I meant NATO intervention. You have to question how serious I was, when I was suggesting that NATO intervene in Syria and attack it's own "rebels"! It's like restricting me for suggesting in 2003 that NATO station troops in Iraq to protect Saddam Hussein's government from Kurds! Besides, a NATO intervention on the side of Assad would defeat Imperialist interests in the region!

I think that I don't deserve to be restricted. I don't think I should be restricted to being able to post only in the "Opposing Ideologies" forum, like I'm some sort of fascist, conservative, religious nut, or a self-proclaimed disciple of Mises, Friedman, Smith or any other bourgeois economist. I'm not pro-Imperialist, and especially not a pro-Russian Imperialist(having experienced the horror of Russian Imperialism personally - I've lived through 2 wars of Russian Imperialism between the mid-90s and early-200s that killed aprox. 250,000 civilians of my nationality - I'm more anti-Russian imperialism than any other member of this forum, I've spent half a decade in various refugee camps in half of Europe because of Russian Imperialism and both sides of my family had many active participants in the Chechen-independence struggle during the 90s, including my father and my paternal and maternal uncles).

I'm a communist of the Marxist tradition. Not a reactionary or purveyor of some "opposing ideology". There's basically not a single essential point on which I disagree with "orthodox" Marxists. I most closely identify with the revolution center of the Second International and the Communist International while it was still Marxist(i.e Kautsky, Lenin, etc). My most important political aims, as that of all communists, are the three mentioned by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, and conquest of political power by the proletariat. I subscribe to the Marxist doctrines of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Being a materialist, I'm naturally an atheist also. Etc, etc. My views are in no way controversial for a Marxist. There's no evidence to the contrary. I'm not a market socialist. I'm not a third-world maoist. I'm not pro-life. I don't think there are "superior" and "inferior" races. I'm not a misogynist(I subscribe to proletarian feminism, i.e the feminism of Clara Zetkin, Bebel, etc, etc). I'm not homophobic.

tl;dr I'm an average Marxist and I'm personally disgusted by imperialism and it's consequences. Please unrestrict me :(

Unrestrict me, pretty please?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QqduL7wxjHo/TrPf39N0ixI/AAAAAAAAA3s/_aktCxO1B2U/s1600/pretty_please_cat-1.jpg

Also, forgive any grammatical or spelling mistakes, English is my 4th language and it's after 12 already and I really want to sleep. I tried to proofread what I just wrote but it didn't work out too well.

[milkmiku]

H-here I go!

I was falsely accused of "Various anti-semitic and fascist sympathizing posts" by orlev here

http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascist-and-troll-t125300/index29.html

He presented no evidence and used out of context quotes.

I simply did not support pointless no impact violence and explained a conspiracy theory.

The final reason I was given for my restriction was
"not a revolutionary leftist" again with no evidence, such a vague reason could be any number of things. The original post that started all this was me simply disagreeing with bombing GD offices, which someone interpreted as "supporting GD" and explaining a conspiracy theory that I gave any indication of believing in.

I do not know how to quote from other threads.

[Luka]

I was restricted because of Pro-Imperialism:

Restricted user Luka, pro-imperialist:

The Douche:


So you support Israeli military action against Iran?

Luka:

Yes.


"Romney Will 'Respect' Israel Strike Aagainst Iran"
That's pretty much the only thing I like about Romney.

However military actions are not necessarily imperialist.
According to Lenin's definition imperialism means:


(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy;

(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and

(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

Something is only imperialist if it's purpose is one of those 5 points. A military attack with the specific purpose of preventing a reactionary, antisemitic regime from getting nuclear weapons fulfills none of those points. I understand that many people here oppose an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, but whether you agree with me or not, it's not an imperialist action. The situation might be different if I was calling for an invasion of the country, but that's not what I did, I only support an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

edit: if you don't accept Lenin's definition then please give me an acceptable definition of imperialism that i can base my arguments on or that I can criticize if I don't think it's correct.
If by imperialist you simply mean an expansionist foreign policy, then I'm not a Pro-Imperialist either, because i'm not supporting any invasion plans, but a military attack directed at Iran's nuclear facilities and nothing else. This does not include an occupation of Iranian territory by US or Israeli troops.

[#FF0000]

nah fuck you son haha

edit: supporting the actions of imperialist countries is pro-imperialism. especially countries that slaughter civilians all day every day like israel!

[Zostrianos]

You're lucky they didn't ban you for that

[Threetune]

Can you lot just stop all this authoritarian autocratic censorship banning crap please.

If you cannot out argue a reactionary, the fault is on you. If It’s real, deal with it!

[Luka]

supporting the actions of imperialist countries is pro-imperialism.
No it isn't. Not every single action of the Israeli government is automatically imperialist.
Also I don't give a shit who takes out Irans nuclear facilities. I would also be okay with it if Cuba did it ;) or some militant Iranian communists. But as I am a realist I know that if it ever happens, it's probably going to be the Israeli or US military. But that doesn't mean that I unconditionally support the Israeli or US military, it just means that I support any action that prevents a reactionary, antisemitic regime from getting nuclear weapons.


especially countries that slaughter civilians all day every day like israel!
Doesn't really have anything to do with it, because I don't support the slaughter of innocent civilians. But for your information the Iranian regime kills lots of civilians, for example because of their sexual orientation. And getting nuclear weapons would strengthen that regime.

[#FF0000]

No it isn't. Not every single action of the Israeli government is automatically imperialist.

That's true, but that doesn't mean self-described communists should start cheerleading the slaughter of fellow workers abroad!


But that doesn't mean that I unconditionally support the Israeli or US military, it just means that I support any action that prevents a reactionary, antisemitic regime from getting nuclear weapons.Supporting them at all, in any capacity, is a shitty (read: reactionary, anti-worker) stance to take. (Especially when there is 0 evidence of iran getting nukes in the first place)


Doesn't really have anything to do with it, because I don't support the slaughter of innocent civilians. But for your information the Iranian regime kills lots of civilians, for example because of their sexual orientation. And getting nuclear weapons would strengthen that regime.But there isn't even any evidence for Iran attempting to get nuclear weapons either.

[cynicles]

Israel has nuclear weapons, do you support someone defanging it?

[Luka]

That's true, but that doesn't mean self-described communists should start cheerleading the slaughter of fellow workers abroad!
I agree. I'm not cheerleading, I simply think it's necessary and the alternative, Iran reaching nuclear weapons capability is worse.


But there isn't even any evidence for Iran attempting to get nuclear weapons either.
A good article on that subject:
huffingtonpost.com/rizwan-ladha/an-iranian-nuclear-weapon_b_1436345.html


Israel has nuclear weapons, do you support someone defanging it?
I would prefer it if Israel would get rid of its nuclear weapons, but I also know that nuclear weapons in Israel are much less of a risk to the world than in Iran. I would support anyone who protests against the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel or anywhere else in the world.


BTW: i don't think I should have to convince everyone to agree with me on that issue just so that i'll be allowed to post in the entire forum. Even if we have different opinion and even if you all consider my opinion to be wrong, I should still be allowed to express my opinion in other parts of the forum. After all my opinion is not motivated by racism/sexism/nationalism/... or any kind of anticommunist point of view.

[Igor]

I would prefer it if Israel would get rid of its nuclear weapons, but I also know that nuclear weapons in Israel are much less of a risk to the world than in Iran. I would support anyone who protests against the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel or anywhere else in the world.

What exactly do you consider 'the world' here; who exactly does Iran threaten? Anyone around it, random targets? Not to mention, what makes you think Iran is somehow more hostile in the region than countries like Israel, because honestly, I've yet to see Iran start one offensive war. People act like Iran is this huge wild card with barely rational leadership who could do anything at anytime, but it's pretty much coming out of nowhere.

There are no reasons to assume Iran would be more of a treat to "the world" than any other nuclear armed nation in the world, we shouldn't buy to the "rogue nation" bullshit that's basically just US/Western propagation.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I was restricted for writing about about a sincere topic. I had read an article in Der Spiegel about porn in East Germany which was quite informative and interesting on the conservative nature of the regime and i wanted to discuss this, debate this conservatism etc. HHere (http://www.revleft.com/vb/masturbation-and-pornography-t169302/index.html?p=2391954#post2391954).

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh... is this a debate thread now?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I agree. I'm not cheerleading, I simply think it's necessary and the alternative, Iran reaching nuclear weapons capability is worse.


A good article on that subject:
huffingtonpost.com/rizwan-ladha/an-iranian-nuclear-weapon_b_1436345.html


I would prefer it if Israel would get rid of its nuclear weapons, but I also know that nuclear weapons in Israel are much less of a risk to the world than in Iran. I would support anyone who protests against the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel or anywhere else in the world.


BTW: i don't think I should have to convince everyone to agree with me on that issue just so that i'll be allowed to post in the entire forum. Even if we have different opinion and even if you all consider my opinion to be wrong, I should still be allowed to express my opinion in other parts of the forum. After all my opinion is not motivated by racism/sexism/nationalism/... or any kind of anticommunist point of view.

Oh yeah, how about the threats of Israeli politicians that if Israel goes down it will attack Europe? Do you realize that the US' Central Intelligence Agency stated recently that Iran will be unable to attain nuclear breakout capability until 5 years?! So what the fuck do you support the right wing capitalist/imperialist fascistic Israeli government bombing, proletarian nuclear energy plants?! Fuck you reactionary, you hold an incorrect position.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

@Admins I don't understand how user Luka (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=63266) can openly state his support here on the RevLeft forum for the bombing of Proletarian nuclear energy plants in peaceful countries by a right wing imperialist government when user Havee33333333 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=59968) was banned for merely supporting the existence of a Zionist state!

[Luka]

Yes Iran is a peaceful country. A peaceful country that kills people for their sexual orientation, oppresses people because of their gender, religious believes etc. and whose government is full of antisemitic idiots.

Also any nation with nuclear weapons is a danger, but you can only stop nations from gaining nuclear capability through military actions before they have nukes, so arguments like that are kind of pointless:

Do you realize that the US' Central Intelligence Agency stated recently that Iran will be unable to attain nuclear breakout capability until 5 years?!
According to recent(I dont think you know what that word means) news reports Iran is closer than previously thought: haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-intelligence-reveals-iranian-military-nuclear-program-advancing-faster-than-previously-thought.premium-1.456426

BTW: If you can openly say that Israel is fascist and wants to attack Europe in case it falls without being restricted, then it should at least be possible for me to say that I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons capability without being restricted

[Igor]

Yes Iran is a peaceful country. A peaceful country that kills people for their sexual orientation, oppresses people because of their gender, religious believes etc. and whose government is full of antisemitic idiots.

Yes, capitalism is reactionary. It's nice we have an understanding here.


Also any nation with nuclear weapons is a danger, but you can only stop nations from gaining nuclear capability through military actions before they have nukes, so arguments like that are kind of pointless:

Yeah, sure, whatever, but there's the little problem: any countries stopping Iran from doing that would be nuclear powers themselves. You really can't see any problems in this, can you?


BTW: If you can openly say that Israel is fascist and wants to attack Europe in case it falls without being restricted, then it should at least be possible for me to say that I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons capability without being restricted

See, there's the problem: none of us probably wants to see Iran having a nuclear weapon that eagerly, unless you're an anti-imp fucker or something. We were talking about an imperialist invasion here, which you did support: you pretty clearly said you're in favour of Israeli military action against Iran. That's a bad fucking thing, that would most of all end up with massive loss of civilian life for petty imperialist pickering, over shit like which capitalist country gets to be top dog on the region. For you to be a communist and think that as a positive thing is just ludicrous.

[cynicles]

Israel has been saying the Iran is 5 years away from nuclear weapons since 1992, and the oppressive nature of the Iranian state does not justify military action or as it's more commonly known 'humanitarian intervention'. Is the Iranian regime sexist, homophobic, racist and classist? Yes. Saying however that you support a racist, ethnocentric colonialist state the engages in ethnic cleansing being able to use military action to stop Iran from getting nukes is not acceptable. Not only that, it would probably set back the progress of any internal movements in Iran from over throwing the state. Also, there has been no material proof offered that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons, just a bunch of claims by Israel and Neocons(those scions of honesty).

[Luka]

any countries stopping Iran from doing that would be nuclear powers themselves. You really can't see any problems in this, can you?
I can see that it would be a problem for the countries to justify that attack. From their perspective it would be hypocritical. But from mine there would be one less country with nuclear capabilities and the world would be a little bit safer.


See, there's the problem: none of us probably wants to see Iran having a nuclear weapon that eagerly, unless you're an anti-imp fucker or something. We were talking about an imperialist invasion here, which you did support: you pretty clearly said you're in favour of Israeli military action against Iran

There is a huge difference between bombing a few nuclear facilities and a full on invasion of Iran. Especially if you're thinking about how many civilians would die. And as I already said I do NOT support an invasion.


the oppressive nature of the Iranian state does not justify military action or as it's more commonly known 'humanitarian intervention'.
I said that because Workers-Control-Over-Prod said that Iran was a peaceful country. It wasn't meant as a justification for a military attack.


Also, there has been no material proof offered that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons,
That argument was already made and I already posted a response.
------------------------------------------


Sorry if I can't respond to everything all of you write, but I'm just one person ;) and i also have some other things to do besides arguing with you on revleft

BTW: I still don't think it should really matter whether I'm right about this issue or not. Even if I'm wrong, which of course is possible, I should still be allowed to express my opinion and not be restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum

[Igor]

Sooo, turning this shit around and going all hypothetical, you'd be completely ok with it Iran was to bomb Israeli nuclear facilities?

[Luka]

Sooo, turning this shit around and going all hypothetical, you'd be completely ok with it Iran was to bomb Israeli nuclear facilities?

No, because as I already said stopping a nation from getting nuclear weapons through military action is only possible before they have them. Attacking them first of all wouldn't stop Israel from having nukes and secondly would be really stupid, because they already have nukes and could use them, however unlikely that is it's not a risk worth taking.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Guys, this isn't a debate thread so cut the chatter. Thanks.

[#FF0000]

Yes Iran is a peaceful country. A peaceful country that kills people for their sexual orientation, oppresses people because of their gender, religious believes etc. and whose government is full of antisemitic idiots.

As opposed to any other country, of course, with the exception of 'antisemitic'.


BTW: If you can openly say that Israel is fascist and wants to attack Europe in case it falls without being restricted, then it should at least be possible for me to say that I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons capability without being restricted

Nah it's your apologism for the settler state of Israel that got you restricted. I don't think it should've though, since we don't restricted other so-called communists have taken just as odious positions in regard to other countries that just so happened to drape themselves in red.

[Luka]

it's your apologism for the settler state of Israel that got you restricted.

No it wasn't, I was restricted because of this:

Restricted user Luka, pro-imperialist:

The Douche:

So you support Israeli military action against Iran?

Luka:

Yes.

"Romney Will 'Respect' Israel Strike Aagainst Iran"
That's pretty much the only thing I like about Romney.


As opposed to any other country, of course, with the exception of 'antisemitic'.
Actually there are lots of differences to other countries. There are no LGBT people being executed in Israel, and the oppression of women also is much more severe then in regular capitalist states. But again I'm not using that as justification for an attack on Iran I just wanted to point out that Iran is not really a peaceful nation, like someone claimed earlier.


edit: Sorry TheGodlessUtopian, I didn't see your post. I won't debate here anymore from now one.

[Havet]

Hey, remember me? Can I be unrestricted? :)

[l'Enfermé]

Can someone give me an update regarding my case? It's been well over a month since I've appealed my restriction.

[Ocean Seal]

I would prefer it if Israel would get rid of its nuclear weapons, but I also know that nuclear weapons in Israel are much less of a risk to the world than in Iran. I would support anyone who protests against the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel or anywhere else in the world.

Except that only the United States has ever used them, Iran hasn't started a war anywhere, and there is no material reason for Iran to ever use nuclear weapons for anything that isn't defensive. Now you support a strike over Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons, because you feel morally inclined to take action when an ally of the people who your beloved Israel has been raping up and down might have a chance to defend himself from imperialist attack in the future. Now I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I'm more strongly opposed to war between bourgeois powers. And I'm a bit concerned that not only are you explicitly taking sides, but your are encouraging jingoistic attitudes, in nations whose bourgeoisie have benefitted from underdeveloping the rest of the world.

[khad]

As opposed to any other country, of course, with the exception of 'antisemitic'.

Nah it's your apologism for the settler state of Israel that got you restricted. I don't think it should've though, since we don't restricted other so-called communists have taken just as odious positions in regard to other countries that just so happened to drape themselves in red.


Sooo, turning this shit around and going all hypothetical, you'd be completely ok with it Iran was to bomb Israeli nuclear facilities?


Israel has been saying the Iran is 5 years away from nuclear weapons since 1992, and the oppressive nature of the Iranian state does not justify military action or as it's more commonly known 'humanitarian intervention'. Is the Iranian regime sexist, homophobic, racist and classist? Yes. Saying however that you support a racist, ethnocentric colonialist state the engages in ethnic cleansing being able to use military action to stop Iran from getting nukes is not acceptable. Not only that, it would probably set back the progress of any internal movements in Iran from over throwing the state. Also, there has been no material proof offered that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons, just a bunch of claims by Israel and Neocons(those scions of honesty).


Except that only the United States has ever used them, Iran hasn't started a war anywhere, and there is no material reason for Iran to ever use nuclear weapons for anything that isn't defensive. Now you support a strike over Iran to prevent them from having nuclear weapons, because you feel morally inclined to take action when an ally of the people who your beloved Israel has been raping up and down might have a chance to defend himself from imperialist attack in the future. Now I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I'm more strongly opposed to war between bourgeois powers. And I'm a bit concerned that not only are you explicitly taking sides, but your are encouraging jingoistic attitudes, in nations whose bourgeoisie have benefitted from underdeveloping the rest of the world.

This thread is only for restricted members appealing their restrictions and the mods/admins. This is not a debate thread.

Take this as a verbal warning. Next time, you'll all be infracted. This goes for you too, Luka.


Can someone give me an update regarding my case? It's been well over a month since I've appealed my restriction.
You know, you would do better if you took the initiative to ask the admins directly.

Apparently your case came up for review within days of your last appeal in July and was rejected.

[l'Enfermé]

You know, you would do better if you took the initiative to ask the admins directly.
Actually, I wouldn't. All the active Admins I used to talk with before I was restricted have been ignoring all of the dozens of PMs and personal messages I left for them since I was restricted. An exception would be TheGodlessUtopian, who is probably the most helpful person on this forum, but he was a mod when I was restricted, and I didn't want to bother him with this because I've asked him about this twice already.


Apparently your case came up for review within days of your last appeal in July and was rejected.That's odd, I was told that the review of my case would take 2-3 more weeks(so long because of "other, urgent concerns") 2 weeks after I posted I asked for my restriction to be reconsidered...

This is pretty disappointing. I guess Marxists aren't welcome around here, only Anarcho-Primitivists, Stalinists, Trots, and Ultra-Lefts. :(

[khad]

Actually, I wouldn't. All the active Admins I used to talk with before I was restricted have been ignoring all of the dozens of PMs and personal messages I left for them since I was restricted.

Well, that's rather jerkish of them.


That's odd, I was told that the review of my case would take 2-3 more weeks(so long because of "other, urgent concerns") 2 weeks after I posted I asked for my restriction to be reconsidered...

This is pretty disappointing. I guess Marxists aren't welcome around here, only Anarcho-Primitivists, Stalinists, Trots, and Ultra-Lefts. :(
I had no part in that discussion, though several admins did. In the end they didn't find sufficient reason for unrestriction.

Sorry.

[Luka]

This thread is only for restricted members appealing their restrictions and the mods/admins. This is not a debate thread.

Take this as a verbal warning. Next time, you'll all be infracted. This goes for you too, Luka.



Okay. This is about my appeal. Will I get an answer any time soon? It has been almost 4 weeks now since I explained why my restriction wasn't justified.

[khad]

Okay. This is about my appeal. Will I get an answer any time soon? It has been almost 4 weeks now since I explained why my restriction wasn't justified.
Your support for imperialist military intervention is a clear cut case for restriction. There are no grounds for unrestriction.

[milkmiku]

I would like to ask about my appeal. Have I even been considered? Could I at least get a better reason?

"Not a revolutionary leftist" is far to vague. I consider my self a revolutionary leftist, but I broke an invisible rule. Please inform me as to what it was.

[freakazoid]

Sooo... Any word on my being unrestricted yet?

[NGNM85]

Once again, I appeal my restriction. I am appealing on the basis of the fact that the forum policy under which I was Restricted is Sexist, and Transphobic, therefore it cannot be enforced, and must be altered, or removed. (I have a number of suggestions on this point.)

Before I continue, it is absolutely paramount that we define, in crystal clarity, the concept of; ‘Sexism’, as this appears to be misunderstood, and is absolutely central to my point. Simply put; to be ‘Sexist’, is to discriminate against, or devalue persons, on the basis of the arbitrary characteristic of their gender. However; I don’t expect anybody to simply take my word for it. That’s fine.

From Dictionary.com;

discrimination or devaluation based on a persons' sex

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism)


From Merriam-Webster:

prejudice or discrimination based on sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism)

From The Free Dictionary;

Discrimination based on gender

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexism)

From Wikipedia;

Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism)

I could keep going, but I won’t belabor the point. Pick any source you want, this is the literal definition, the only definition of; ‘Sexism’, in the English language. The forums' official position on Sexism is very explicit;

In addition, all forms of social prejudice are considered restrictable offenses. This includes but is not limited to sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism.

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

Now, let’s take a look at the text of the Forum FAQ regarding Restrictions;

The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman, and every woman has a right to choose.

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

This pretty clearly states that women, or, at least, pregnant women, have a unique right to bodily autonomy, that this right is absolutely sacrosanct, and that this unique right is specifically predicated upon their gender. That is textbook sexism. To be fair, this is more strongly implied, however, in the context of the subsequent conversations on this subject, it’s abundantly clear that this is exactly the authors’ intention. From the top of the very same page;

In addition, all forms of social prejudice are considered restrictable offenses. This includes but is not limited to sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism.

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

Clearly, the abortion policy is in a fundamental conflict with the policy regarding Sexism, therefore; it cannot be enforced, and must be altered, or abolished. (Again; I have a number of suggestions as to how to resolve this.)

Second; this policy is Transphobic. As stated in the FAQ;

The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman, and every woman has a right to choose.

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

As this policy asserts the unique right to total, inviolable, bodily autonomy is the sole preserve of women, and only women, on the basis of their gender, we can only conclude that, either; A: Transmen, like Thomas Beatie, for example, do not enjoy this unique right., or, B: That Transmen are being classified, for these purposes, as; ‘women.’ In either case, this is blatantly Transphobic, which is explicitly prohibited in the FAQ;

In addition, all forms of social prejudice are considered restrictable offenses. This includes but is not limited to sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism.

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

Therefore; for the last time, this policy must be rewritten, or demolished, but, in any case, cannot be enforced, as is, therefore; my Restriction is null, and void, and I must be returned to normal status.

[khad]

Once again, I appeal my restriction. I am appealing on the basis of the fact that the forum policy under which I was Restricted is Sexist, and Transphobic, therefore it cannot be enforced, and must be altered, or removed. (I have a number of suggestions on this point.)
This isn't the place to petition for changes on the abortion policy. Any further attempt to engage this topic in this thread will be regarded as spamming.

[NGNM85]

This isn't the place to petition for changes on the abortion policy. Any further attempt to engage this topic in this thread will be regarded as spamming.

This assumes that contesting my Restriction as being unfair, and protesting the nature of this policy, are mutually exclusive, but they are not. As I was Restricted under a Sexist, and Transphobic policy, and Sexism, and Transphobia are (paradoxically) against forum policy, this cannot be enforced, ergo; my Restriction was unfair. That's totally within the perameters established by the OP. However; if you believe that this discussion would be more appropriate in another venue, I would be perfectly happy to comply.

[khad]

What did I say? Enjoy your infraction.

[durhamleft]

I'd like to be unrestricted. I'm not a Marxist, but I enjoy the political craic on here. I'm never abusive to people, and just enjoy a good political chat. I feel like I provide good arguments and it would benefit the revleft community to have me posting in other forums. I don't really see what you achieve by restricting posters like me.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'd like to be unrestricted. I'm not a Marxist, but I enjoy the political craic on here. I'm never abusive to people, and just enjoy a good political chat. I feel like I provide good arguments and it would benefit the revleft community to have me posting in other forums. I don't really see what you achieve by restricting posters like me.

Do you still identify as a libertarian? If so than you will remain restricted.Members here do not become unrestricted simply because they are kind, thoughtful persons.

[durhamleft]

Do you still identify as a libertarian? If so than you will remain restricted.Members here do not become unrestricted simply because they are kind, thoughtful persons.

I'm socially a libertarian, the same as you all are - or most at least.

Economically I believe that we should work within capitalism yes, I do not believe in the planned economy. I believe in redistribution and government intervention but within the context of capitalism.

Other than the 'rules are rules', is there a reason why I'm restricted? Many Marxists who post on here are incredibly simple in their analysis, and contribute little. Many Marxists who post are able to justify some pretty dubious things on the back of Stalinism.

I would just like to know why my views should lead to my restriction. What does it achieve? My 'tag' under my name means everyone knows where I'm coming from, I'd just be debating with people. I didn't mind being in OI but scrolling through the threads today they're all pretty shit. Or at least can we add a new board? Anyway I know I'm not going to be unrestricted, I just wanted to point out that I actually think it's pretty unfair as I'm not a bad person.

On a side note GodlessUtopian. I'd like to make a complaint about a another person. If you look at my feedback, someone posted 'fight me u c*nt' under negative rep. As far as I'm aware, the word 'c*nt' is banned- and also I didn't like the fact it was in effect a threat for me just expressing a political opinion. But the annoying thing is I can't even see who the poster was who left it? regardless can you at least take it off, as I dont like that word being on my profile. Anyway hope your taking care - know this isn't the place for a chat so if you drop me a message some time we can catch up

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The quality of posting doesn't matter but the views expressed do: if you support capitalism then you are restricted, end of story.

In regards to the rep comment.You are right when you say that it is against the rules.Please message and Admin ("Children of the Revolution, Mari3L or any bold red name) to get this matter resolved.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm socially a libertarian, the same as you all are - or most at least.

Economically I believe that we should work within capitalism yes, I do not believe in the planned economy. I believe in redistribution and government intervention but within the context of capitalism.

Other than the 'rules are rules', is there a reason why I'm restricted? Many Marxists who post on here are incredibly simple in their analysis, and contribute little. Many Marxists who post are able to justify some pretty dubious things on the back of Stalinism.

I would just like to know why my views should lead to my restriction. What does it achieve? My 'tag' under my name means everyone knows where I'm coming from, I'd just be debating with people. I didn't mind being in OI but scrolling through the threads today they're all pretty shit. Or at least can we add a new board? Anyway I know I'm not going to be unrestricted, I just wanted to point out that I actually think it's pretty unfair as I'm not a bad person.

Sorry mate but your professed belief in the desirability of capitalism (however attenuated) is a deal breaker.

Capitalism requires that those who do not have must serve those who have. Such a barbaric arrangement is not only anathema to our views for how society should operate, but is counter-productive to the very ethos of social libertarianism you claim to hold.

Personally I think the kind of "capitalism with a human face" you advocate is perhaps more useful to developing the leftist critique than the Stalinist dribble some spew here. We used to have a more ambivalent approach to Stalinism. But at the same time, we can't afford to keep rehashing the debate of "why not capitalism?". That is why people who are in favor of capitalism are restricted to posting in the OI - so that the rest of us can present a united front to persuade the likes of you to see capitalism for the scam that it is (on which all else is predicated), and if not, at least hone our arguments against capitalism.

Perhaps the best analogy is religion - Christians, Muslims and Jews agree on very little, and theologically they are incompatible - but at the same time, they are all committed to monotheism. Proponents of paganism/polytheism, no matter how much they jive with doctrines like the Golden Rule, are simply beyond the scope of debate. In the same vain, we agree on very little as leftists, but we collectively realize that whatever our vision for the future, capitalism is not a part of it Unless you are committed to that, questions about the relative merits of Stalinism/syndicalism/trotskyism etc... just do not make much sense.

[Valdemar]

Hi there,

I was restricted some time ago, allegedly because male chauvinism. It was my first post, and i did not understand that there/here is such strict policy of restrictions. My comment was made half in joke and half seriously, because i wanted to give nice advice to the guy, so that he does not have troubles with parents.

I firmly believe that man and woman should be equal and given equal opportunities. And i also believe that they are not in current system.

I really would not care about being "counter-rev", but being that restricts me posting on half of forum and language sections of forum. I hate seeing good topic, and trying to comment I get "Valdemar, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons..."

Last time i wrote here i was not being responded, although i wrote in nice manner.
Eager to see your response,
Yours Truly dedicated communist "Valdemar" who opposes imperialist interventions unlike some moderators here :)

[B5C]

I've haven't been here for a very long time (Almost a year I believe. I've just came back a few days ago.). I believe I was restricted due to my stance of supporting Social Democracy. I have given up on that. No matter if it is bad or even nice capitalism. Capitalism is still capitalism which will be used to exploit people if it is nice or bad. The only way to get rid of Capitalism is through revolution.

I've been active with some Socialist communities in my local area. I help promote Kshama Sawant of the "Socialist Alternative" when she went against Frank Chopp (Democratic Speaker of the House in Washington State.)

IF you like, KurtFF8 knows me outside of revleft and he can vouch of my stance.

I wish to expand my knowledge of Marxism and revolution. If reddit's r/socialism & r/Marxism helped me a lot. Revleft will help me as well.

Thank you,

B5C

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Sorry for being off topic, but how do you guys enforce doctrinal integrity? As long as they're subtle, even the worst fascist probably can survive here.

p.s

I'm going back to college soon and due to the subversive power of the internet, i'm in desperate need of a grammar nazi.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Sorry for being off topic, but how do you guys enforce doctrinal integrity? As long as they're subtle, even the worst fascist probably can survive here.

p.s

I'm going back to college soon and due to the subversive power of the internet, i'm in desperate need of a grammar nazi.
It's pretty-much guaranteed that there will always be Nazis around (hell, some might even be mods), but the only ones who warrant worrying about over an internet forum are the ones who express their beliefs wholeheartedly. I'd advise not putting up any information that could jeopardise your anonimity, however. There have been previous cases of leftists who have given their details out here and had people abuse or threaten them immediately afterwards.

Unlike in real life, on the internet you can be whatever you wish. I guess that can apply to fascistic pigs as well.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I doth protest my infraction. The prior post was this:

The West Bank? Dear God if that's true...
the prior post trailed off and i wanted the guy to elaborate. I could've just asked in a boring way but instead i posted the pic i keep on hand for just these types of situation. A picture can be worth a thousand words.

[campesino]

I don't mind being restricted from the discrimination forum, but only being able to post in OI is ridiculous, given the nature of my "infraction."

[B5C]

Admins, any update on my restriction?

[campesino]

a

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Originally Posted by PC LOAD LETTER http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2545717#post2545717)
https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en (http://www.anonym.to/?https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en)

Have fun.


disclaimer: Don't get mad mods, i just want to test if all forums block tor.

[campesino]

a

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

how do i get unrestricted? is this permanent?

I've never heard of someone being unrestricted so yeah (or you could wait a month and "sincerely" state your change of heart and just keep your libertarian beliefs to yourself as you post.

[campesino]

a

[Pelarys]

I'm not a libertarian.
I don't understand what is non-leftist about what I said.

I'll give you that, you're definitely not a libertarian...
I don't think you're going to be unrestricted if you don't see what's wrong with your post.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I'm not a libertarian. this is why I'm restricted http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2531700&postcount=75

I don't understand what is non-leftist about what I said.

Recant and say you have no problem with homosexuals having kids, only that you believe the state should seize children from families that would abuse them mentally or physically? Which is probably what you meant but didn't properly state. Right?

[campesino]

a

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I never said I had a problem with homosexuals having kids. To clarify my position, I would support a system where a person has to apply for being a parent. I've seen scumbags have children and treat their kids like shit. It would be best for society to creaet such a system. What even started it all was The Douche posted in that thread something along the lines of "being a stay-at-home parent(male or female, gay or straight) is reactionary." I just had to contradict such words when I read them.

If what you say is correct. The Douche was indeed in the wrong when he posted that. But on further consideration what you said is also idiotic. Controlling an entire species reproduction is both unfeasible and dystopic. There is no way such a system could lead to a better tomorrow.

[campesino]

a

[The Douche]

I never said I had a problem with homosexuals having kids. To clarify my position, I would support a system where a person has to apply for being a parent. I've seen scumbags have children and treat their kids like shit. It would be best for society to creaet such a system. What even started it all was The Douche posted in that thread something along the lines of "being a stay-at-home parent(male or female, gay or straight) is reactionary." I just had to contradict such words when I read them.

Your position still warrants restriction, sorry.


Everybody else needs to see themselves out of this thread, it is only for appeals and mods/admins.

[campesino]

a

[The Douche]

is there anything I can do about it? is this permanent?

try to understand where I'm coming from, I can't post in anywhere but OI, so many opinions I want to share, so many questions I want to ask, hell, all I want to do is participate in good discussions about issues cincerning the left. is that too much for ask for?

how about i never post about the few suggestions I have ever again. it probably won't happen since %99.99 of threads don't even deal with the issue.

Is there anything you can do about it? I mean, you could not think that way. But we're not here to tell you how to think, our concern is that people with reactionary positions (like advocating state control over individual's bodies) don't post on the main board.

And no, we won't just unrestrict you anyways.

It is hard, but not impossible, to be unrestricted, Mari3l is an admin now and they were once restricted. And a number of other users have been unrestricted as well.

But saying "i won't talk about my reactionary ideas" or simply saying "i don't feel that way anymore" will not get you unrestricted.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And no, we won't just unrestrict you anyways.

It is hard, but not impossible, to be unrestricted, Mari3l is an admin now and they were once restricted. And a number of other users have been unrestricted as well.

But saying "i won't talk about my reactionary ideas" or simply saying "i don't feel that way anymore" will not get you unrestricted.

How does one get unrestricted? I thought the person would be restricted for something like 2 weeks and then if he accepted to shut the fuck up about his opinions (censorship), he would get unrestricted.

[The Douche]

How does one get unrestricted? I thought the person would be restricted for something like 2 weeks and then if he accepted to shut the fuck up about his opinions (censorship), he would get unrestricted.

No, that's not even close to what we do, if you want to know, this is not the appropriate thread.

And to reiterate, this thread is for staff members and individuals appealing their restriction. Anybody else is spamming and will receive an infraction.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Stupid question here but:
I'm scared of this. What does someone get restricted for (I mean, could it be anything unpleasing?) and are there warnings given?

Don't worry, if I haven't been restricted yet you should not have any problems.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Why am i restricted? I've received no warning or explanation.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I didn't know the difference between sex and gender (still don't get why people say sexual orientation) and meant that women should not be in low supervised active frontline troop units in the US army until the rape culture is dealt with through reforms through the upper brass (troop protest in the military is usually crushed quickly).That doesn't mean that women can't fight. I literally said 2 posts later that in more "enlightened"/revolutionary units, these problems would exist far less and be structured far differntly (more allowances for troops to take leave) and therefore erase the danger and potential problems of troop sex integration. This is a problem of semantics, and i'd think we'd all agree that the US military is bad overall and noone should join it.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I think I've adequately explained myself in the other thread. No response from the mods? I hope this has nothing to do with pissing you guys off in the Avanti thread.

[Sasha]

Stupid question here but:
I'm scared of this. What does someone get restricted for (I mean, could it be anything unpleasing?) and are there warnings given?


there is a button labeled FAQ at the top of the your page... when you registered you got advised to click it.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I'm restricted forever no matter what i say aren't i.:mellow:

[Sasha]

I'm restricted forever no matter what i say aren't i.:mellow:

No, but throwing a fit instead making an honest effort to educate yourself is sure not helping.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Why have all posts by Campesino turned into
a

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

No, but throwing a fit instead making an honest effort to educate yourself is sure not helping.

What the fuck are you talking about? I've already said that i mispoke and given 10 posts of explanation about the mistake of vagueness, mixing up sex and gender, and assuming you people knew exactly what i was talking about. The word "Archaic" was meant to be a joke. Fuck. And how the hell would you know when i was "educated" when you disregard an hour of me stating that I think that women can fight but shouldn't in the classist, bigoted, sexist and all around reactionary US military and that when i say think different, i mean in subtle ways that have more to do with levels of estrogen and testosterone than IQ or relative value? Again, Da Fuck?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

In conclusion, women can and should fight in integrated units. But those units should function properly first. This is like me being banned for "being against" school desegregation because i think that the teachers should be publically barred from calling their students nigers first.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Seriously....:thumbdown:

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

me right now...
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb8mt2ttLx1ruqdo9.gif
me if this doesn't get resolved by tomorrow morning...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyxk6yCYey1r5gvg1o1_500.gif

[Flying Purple People Eater]

me right now...
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb8mt2ttLx1ruqdo9.gif
me if this doesn't get resolved by tomorrow morning...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyxk6yCYey1r5gvg1o1_500.gif
You were restricted for being Sexist and using pseudoscience to support your blatantly conservative opinions about women (also known as half the world's population). You should be kept in OI.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

You were restricted for being Sexist and using pseudoscience to support your blatantly conservative opinions about women (also known as half the world's population). You should be kept in OI.

What the fuck are you talking about? What pseudoscience? And when did i say women were less equal than men? What the FUCK!

[Jack]

What the fuck are you talking about? What pseudoscience? And when did i say women were less equal than men? What the FUCK!

Welcome to RevLeft.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Still no response and goodnight

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Damn insomnia.....still no response.....

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I got the spam message and read the instructions. Here goes:




ps: I'm not ready for this kind of fundamental societal shift. I still think in archaic views like testosterone / estrogen fueled thought patterns and not wanting females to fight at the front lines due to the potential negative affects on morale.
This began as a joke that seems to have gone horribly, horribly wrong. Was kidding about archaic thought (and at most was referring too slight differences due to estrogen/ testosterone levels. Readthis for clarification on front lines:

And finally, when i say front lines, i do mean advanced armed forces like the US. I thought revolutionary guerrilla units and worker uprisings were supposed to be fluid and avoid setting up front lines against technologically superior foes?



The women visibly being put at the front in attack and exposed defense capacities when not in dire circumstances no

Thought patterns just has to do with increased overt aggresiveness and how the genders view things like sex and ways of expressing themselves.
This was a mistake do my recurring trend of mistaking sex for gender (which according to some posters here both do not exist)


I would just think that putting healthy athletic youths in extremely stressful situations together would kind of encourage certain "interactions" (this could happen with those of the same sex as well but ignore that for now). Maybe the males slack off in an attempt to impress the females, maybe plan b's would have to go into military expenditures and maybe a guy would become even more devestated if his or lover died versus a close friend. Unless we're really low on troops or defending Stalingrad i don't see why it's necessary. When i said different thought processes i just meant how various levels of estrogen and testosterone affect views on baby's and violence. That doesn't mean that women can't fight, it just means that if a man's testosterone drops after having and beginning to raise a kid, it probably has something to do with how certain chemical balances push for certain basic and subconscious reactions. This has nothing to do with equality and if raised or vhemically born a certain way, a man or woman can do anything.

Edit: Hurt morale also means soldiers being less willing to follow orders to a T
I generally type as though it were an uninterrupted chain of thought so i made some mistakes here. No matter how revolutionary i am i still sometimes think we for US military and its various problems. For some reason i completely forgot my main argument and actually just came off as sounding sexist. IF i'm going to legitimately stay restricted, this is the post you will use.


Women revolutionaries are badasses who are willing to trade a safe life for being constantly threatened with death in the wilds. Beourgois kids who conscript usually just want money, an escape or to play Rambo. Just because you aren't a part of something doesn't mean you can't analyse it. Gender integrated units in the US army would not work well.

Gender can't be abolished because penises and vaginas can't be removed. The tendencies that society places on the genders can be tweaked, but doing things like banning stay at home moms or seizing GI Joes from boys
(which is essentially a war doll) should be avoided.

This post is evidence of what i meant to be talking about. More evidence for my mixing of sex and gender (but why do people say sexual orientation and if none exist how can those heteros who breed with mates be classified as?). Seizing GI GOes is probably the only thing that actually has something to do with the topic.


Gender does not equal gender roles. I am male due to having a natural penis. Read my prior post for more info
Mixing sex with gender


Read my above posts. I was thinking traditional standing armies. Seeing as though guerrilla units are completely different i'll let my above posts explain myself.
Explaining the unfortunate front comment


I mix up gender and sex i guess. Not mixing the genders in a standing army only should be applied to today in bloated military appartuses like the US which FYI still suffers from a rape epidemic.
Me realizing i that i mixed sex and gender and that you can't read my mind.


Jesus Christ use context. I live in America, and the only standing army i truly can speak about with confidence is the US military. It is true that rape is an evil that occurs during war, but i don't think that all advanced military structures have an ingrained rape problem like the US does. I assume people have stated that although they are against the military, they think that units should be integrated due to equality, a stance that ignores certain factors. Just cause i don't like them doesn't mean that i'll ignore that they exist.
me trying to explain myself


Oh come on. I already said that i mixed up gender and sex (and am still confused why people say sexual orientation) and the women military thing would be better replaced with reforms on how women rape victims are treated in the US military. Until that is done it kind of is irresponsible to ut women in such situations when they will not be supported.. I'll find my explanatory posts if necessary.
me still explaining myself


Morale means more than you think. A lot more rape victims (the army would reach navy levels), and punishments for "elicit" relationships would harm the US Army in its current form. It should be reformed first (probably better if it were abolished). And lets not kid ouselves that men and women think exactly the same. Varying levels of estrogen and testosterone do slightly affect thought patterns, you people are just taking my words out of proportion.
me failing to explain myself.


Well i'm done. In conclusion, i mixed sex and gender and the US army for all of war. There was a post i lost that stated that i would have no problems with US troop sex integration if it meaningfully addressed its discrimination first. I used the analogy of commanding teachers to not whip and refer to their new students as n words before and not years after they desegregated. Please don't make this a waste of time.

[Sasha]

me right now...
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb8mt2ttLx1ruqdo9.gif
me if this doesn't get resolved by tomorrow morning...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyxk6yCYey1r5gvg1o1_500.gif


again;
throwing a fit instead making an honest effort to educate yourself is sure not helping.

your objection to your restriction is noted and so is your "argument", now stop spamming this thread and lay of the hissyfit or i change my mind and ban you after all (as is actually demanded by the guidelines for sexists outside of the anti-choice group)

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

again;

your objection to your restriction is noted and so is your "argument", now stop spamming this thread and lay of the hissyfit or i change my mind and ban you after all (as is actually demanded by the guidelines for sexists outside of the anti-choice group)

Read the instructions after posting the pics. Still no response though.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

So will i get a message announcing the will of the mods or will i only hear something if i get unrestricted?(in other words will I have to assume that the mods decided i was to be restricted ad infinitum if i get no response?)

[GoddessCleoLover]

So will i get a message announcing the will of the mods or will i only hear something if i get unrestricted?(in other words will I have to assume that the mods decided i was to be restricted ad infinitum if i get no response?)

One option might be to lay off the rhetoric and post in the OI section without running afoul of the rules. I would guess that communicating with the B.A. in a respectful manner might also prove beneficial.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

One option might be to lay off the rhetoric and post in the OI section without running afoul of the rules. I would guess that communicating with the B.A. in a respectful manner might also prove beneficial.

Did I break the rules in the O.I section? Yes the utopian opening post wasn't that well thought out and didn't take certain things into consideration. Me complaining about the b word versus bastard was also probably unnecessary, but you probably noticed that i haven't used the word in a while online anyway. Which is the most this site can push me to do.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Did I break the rules in the O.I section? Yes the utopian opening post wasn't that well thought out and didn't take certain things into consideration. Me complaining about the b word versus bastard was also probably unnecessary, but you probably noticed that i haven't used the word in a while online anyway. Which is the most this site can push me to do.

I dont' know why you were restricted. The B.A. took that action and they certainly didn't consult with me. Using the b-word is clearly inviting trouble. Frankly, it took a while to even begin to appreciate the issue at hand. Your tone in addressing the B.A.'s seems to have less than tactful. Good luck though, I am a "free speech" type of guy. Realistically, though my guess is that you will have to be VERY patient and make serious amends to have any hope of achieving your goal.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I dont' know why you were restricted. The B.A. took that action and they certainly didn't consult with me. Using the b-word is clearly inviting trouble. Frankly, it took a while to even begin to appreciate the issue at hand. Your tone in addressing the B.A.'s seems to have less than tactful. Good luck though, I am a "free speech" type of guy. Realistically, though my guess is that you will have to be VERY patient and make serious amends to have any hope of achieving your goal.

I didn't use the b word in the thread that i was restricted for (i only used it twice in the insult a user thread). I don't get the whole committed user thing. Do you guys get a vote in decision making or are you the mods sockpuppets for having opinions without harming the sites legitimacy in the eyes of its users? And how do i make "amends" for something online? Fuck this place if a supposedly leftist website requires "donations" for reactivating accounts.

edit: On further review i seem to have used *****ing alot though. Sorry. But than again besides one poster labeling me sexist from day one because of it, noone has brought it up and i have used it increasingly seldomly

[Sasha]

last and final warning, your objection has been noted, your argument has been noted (and found lacking), now read up a bit on sexism, gender and male-privilege, prove in OI through reasonable debate and exemplary behavior that you belong on this board and we will reconsider your restriction in a few months.

keep on spamming, flaming and esp spreading lies (like this one;
Fuck this place if a supposedly leftist website requires "donations" for reactivating accounts.
) and you will find your ass banned before the end of the week.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

last and final warning, your objection has been noted, your argument has been noted (and found lacking), now read up a bit on sexism, gender and male-privilege, prove in OI through reasonable debate and exemplary behavior that you belong on this board and we will reconsider your restriction in a few months.

keep on spamming, flaming and esp spreading lies (like this one; ) and you will find your ass banned before the end of the week.

This is the first time you've explained how this works to me. I now get the difference between sex and gender and never denied male privilege. A pm saying that my request was denied would have been a lot more simple.

[PigmerikanMao]

Some of these are pretty fun to read.


Do you still identify as a libertarian? If so than you will remain restricted.Members here do not become unrestricted simply because they are kind, thoughtful persons.

At what line do we demarcate anarchists from libertarians? What about anarcho-libertarians? Are they to be pushed to the wayside?

[PigmerikanMao]

Can I get unrestricted yet? :rolleyes:

[Grigori]

Your name sounds like something a third worldist would call themselves so probably no

[LOLseph Stalin]

Just so people know I'm no longer a filthy capitalist :laugh:. I know I had a reputation in the past for switching ideologies on a whim, but I think if I came back to revolutionary leftism there must be something drawing me in, so make your call.

P.S- zionism is shit and I used to support that too. *pukes*

[GreenCommunism]

Hi , i'll like to get unrestricted, i was restricted for being a third worldist, and i no longer am.

my ideology is now normal maoism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm not sure if anybody has looked over my request yet, but I'd appreciate if they do. If you have any questions just feel free to message me.

[Karl Renegade]

To whoever controls who gets banned/members, I was banned immediately after posting that I found some members rude and intolerant and being banned probably proves me right! before that, I started a thread (learning section;"identity")that made people accuse me of being SEXIST and HOMOPHOBIC which I still strongly deny. There is a difference between indifference and hatred. I've posted about other much interesting topics but that seems to be the one to get noticed. To portray women/homosexuals from rich western countries where I suspect some people here are from as oppressed is an insult to real oppressed, poor people from the 3rd world. I know because I'm from the 3rd world (Philippines). Except for a cynical remark about some people being "lifestyle" leftists, everyone can see that I have been respectful the whole time especially my initial question in that thread. It's the others,many of them that have been abusive towards me as anyone can see and that is why I lost control towards the end of that thread. I WROTE THIS JUST TO CLARIFY THINGS. I DONT WANT TO BE PART OF THIS FORUM AGAIN. I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN SUCH AN INTOLERANT GROUP OF PEOPLE. GOODBYE, REVLEFT. YOU WILL NEVER FIND SOMEONE AS INTERESTING AS ME, SOMEONE WHO THINKS FOR HIMSELF !!!!!

[Sam_b]

You are not banned, you are restricted. Many people felt uncomfortable having someone in the main forums who, as you say above, feel that LGBTQ people and women are not oppressed because of some magical Western society where these things don't happen. They do. It's insulting to all the people in our community that have been victim to homophobic/sexist attacks and worse. If you are leaving and still hold these views, may I say on behalf of our community good riddance.

[Nico Belic]

I can understand excluding the far right from your forums, but why exclude everyone who is right of the centre?

[Sentinel]

I can understand excluding the far right from your forums, but why exclude everyone who is right of the centre?

We exclude not only those right of centre but also reformist leftists, social conservatives regardless of economic views, and generally people who don't fit within the revolutionary left paradigm from the main part of the board because this is a community for the revolutionary left. The reason is not that we don't wish to debate these people, that's what the OI is for and it's quite useful for us; especially for newbies to practice debating skills and arguments.

Restriction isn't a punishment. We simply can't let anyone post on the main forums, because that would mean that we ceased to be a community and online space for our main audience. We would instead become a general political forum where the main topic would be if revolutionary socialism/anarchism/communism are justified at all; indepth discussion between revolutionary leftists would be rendered impossible.

Similarly allowing social reactionaries to post outside OI would destroy us as a safe space to discuss tactics to combat sexism, homophobia and racism. Now, these people are often not restricted but banned, as their posts are discriminatory and offensive towards many of our users (as explained by sam_b) but some borderline cases, as well as for example most anti-choice people, are allowed to stay in OI and hopefully come around to understand why we see their views as wrong.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are democratic socialists allowed here? I'm just curious since most of them are anti-capitalist, they just prefer to use democratic methods rather than revolution to overthrow it. Hugo Chavez is democratic socialist afterall.

[Sentinel]

Social democrats and other reformists who believe in using bourgeois democratic parliamentary politics to achieve socialism are restricted. Participation in electoral politics in itself is fine, but believing it is enough to achieve socialism means that one isn't a revolutionary leftist and thus can expect to be restricted on this board.

Btw, questions like this are fine but remember that this thread is not meant for debate. So if you wish to discuss our position Chavez or other 'democratic socialists' more indepth, by all means start a thread on that. Threads and discussion on board policy are however not allowed in OI.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm not a democratic socialist btw, but I was curious. I will go start a thread though. Thanks.

[Nico Belic]

We exclude not only those right of centre but also reformist leftists, social conservatives regardless of economic views, and generally people who don't fit within the revolutionary left paradigm from the main part of the board because this is a community for the revolutionary left. The reason is not that we don't wish to debate these people, that's what the OI is for and it's quite useful for us; especially for newbies to practice debating skills and arguments.

Ok fair enough.


Restriction isn't a punishment. We simply can't let anyone post on the main forums, because that would mean that we ceased to be a community and online space for our main audience. We would instead become a general political forum where the main topic would be if revolutionary socialism/anarchism/communism are justified at all; indepth discussion between revolutionary leftists would be rendered impossible.

Arguable to be frank, restriction is oppression, therefore punishment.


Similarly allowing social reactionaries to post outside OI would destroy us as a safe space to discuss tactics to combat sexism, homophobia and racism. Now, these people are often not restricted but banned, as their posts are discriminatory and offensive towards many of our users (as explained by sam_b) but some borderline cases, as well as for example most anti-choice people, are allowed to stay in OI and hopefully come around to understand why we see their views as wrong.

I'm all for banning complete idiots, but your suggesting anyone against your view fits this criteria, and I right to assume this?

[Sentinel]

Arguable to be frank, restriction is oppression, therefore punishment

Oppression, is it now.. :lol: No, denying people access to private discussion spaces, which is essentially what this forum constitutes, is not oppression. It's a discussion forum and not a society. And as the main page header says, it's meant to be 'the home of the revolutionary left'.

Claiming that the fact we don't let right wingers and other opposers post here constitutes 'oppression' is the same as if I came to your home uninvited, and claimed you were oppressing me for throwing me out.

***

InsertNameHere, some concerns have been raised over comments you made regarding the lumpenproletariat in the past. Could you please clarify your current stance on this issue, to help the BA in our decision?

[LOLseph Stalin]

***

InsertNameHere, some concerns have been raised over comments you made regarding the lumpenproletariat in the past. Could you please clarify your current stance on this issue, to help the BA in our decision?

Which comments in particular?

Anyway, as it stands now I consider drug addicts, prostitutes, etc. and such as victims who just do what they need to in order to cope and survive. Instead of being treated as criminals they need to be treated as people. Society needs to work towards granting them the help they need, but unfortunately capitalist society prevents that :rolleyes:.

[Sentinel]

Thanks, I've forwarded this information.

[#FF0000]

I WROTE THIS JUST TO CLARIFY THINGS. I DONT WANT TO BE PART OF THIS FORUM AGAIN. I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN SUCH AN INTOLERANT GROUP OF PEOPLE. GOODBYE, REVLEFT. YOU WILL NEVER FIND SOMEONE AS INTERESTING AS ME, SOMEONE WHO THINKS FOR HIMSELF !!!!!

we all think for ourselves tho. You're just wrong.

[Sentinel]

A poll on whether or not InsertNameHere should be unrestricted has been started in the Board Administration forum. Voting will go on for 3-7 days.

[Kindness]

While I respect this forum and its decision to restrict me, I'm wondering what rule, if any, I broke. The reason Sentinel gave for my restriction was "pacifist, opposes revolutionary violence." I wasn't aware that one must support violence to be a radical leftist, nor was I aware of anything in the rules that prohibits pacifism. I'd like to contest my restriction, but I understand if you feel like you must restrict me. Either way, I respect you and your decision, and I thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to participate on this forum. Best of luck :).

-Kindness

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

While I respect this forum and its decision to restrict me, I'm wondering what rule, if any, I broke. The reason Sentinel gave for my restriction was "pacifist, opposes revolutionary violence." I wasn't aware that one must support violence to be a radical leftist, nor was I aware of anything in the rules that prohibits pacifism. I'd like to contest my restriction, but I understand if you feel like you must restrict me. Either way, I respect you and your decision, and I thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to participate on this forum. Best of luck :).

-Kindness

I'd say it's probably because you're so quick to defend the lifes of people, capitalists and whatnot, as more important than anything else. It gives off the vibe of not being revolutionary.

[Brutus]

You can still post in OI pacifist.

[#FF0000]

restricting for pacifism is one of the dumbest things I've heard of second only to pacifism

[Brosa Luxemburg]

restricting for pacifism is one of the dumbest things I've heard of second only to pacifism

I literally just thought the same exact thing, and then read this lol

[LOLseph Stalin]

restricting for pacifism is one of the dumbest things I've heard of second only to pacifism

I suppose it really depends on if the person was opposing violence against capitalists or not. Like if there was a revolution there would be no choice but to use violence against the capitalists since they would use violence against us.

[#FF0000]

Even then, I think it's dumb to restrict on account of that

[l'Enfermé]

Fun fact: Unless you are a restricted user appealing your restriction, posting in this thread earns you an infraction. Drop this shit. All this off-topic posting clutters the thread and occasionally causes us to miss legitimate restriction appeals.

Kindness: I brought up your case in the mod forum. The BA will discuss it and tell you the decision. Meanwhile, it would be helpful if you elaborated your views. Are you pro-revolution? Are you against private property? and so on.

[Kindness]

Are you pro-revolution?

Probably not in the same sense as most here. I do want revolutionary social and economic change, but I want it to come through a peaceful dual-power process rather than through the barrel of a gun.


Are you against private property?

Yes and no. I believe people should have the right to own their own homes, farms, and so forth. I also think people are entitled to the full product of their labor. I'm also supportive of small, family businesses. However, I'm not for corporate entities owning land or capital in order to make profit, and I believe any property that isn't being used (for living, education, etc.) should be reverted to common ownership. I don't support state ownership of property, or even the existence of "the state" in the traditional sense at all.

[Orange Juche]

The reason Sentinel gave for my restriction was "pacifist, opposes revolutionary violence."

Violence is not inherently revolutionary in any way, that's an entirely absurd reason. It's more like, "opposes bloodlust and desire to get revenge on capitalists". I call shenanigans on that as a reason to restrict.

[Le Socialiste]

Violence is not inherently revolutionary in any way, that's an entirely absurd reason. It's more like, "opposes bloodlust and desire to get revenge on capitalists". I call shenanigans on that as a reason to restrict.

Come on McFly, did you not read l'Enfermé's warning? If you're not a restricted user appealing your restriction, don't post here. You're welcome to take your conversation with Kindness elsewhere (their profile or PM), just not here.

Kindness wasn't just restricted for his/her pacifism, but for their willingness to use 'nonlethal' force against leftists who do engage in violence. That's where the bulk of the restriction stems from (as far as I'm aware).

[Kindness]

Kindness wasn't just restricted for his/her pacifism, but for their willingness to use 'nonlethal' force against leftists who do engage in violence. That's where the bulk of the restriction stems from (as far as I'm aware).

That's not the reason Sentinel gave in his "Admin Actions" post. Also, I'm still not aware of how that breaks any forum rule, though I understand that I could be (and probably am) wrong or mistaken in some way.

Either way, I want to drop the appeal. It simply isn't that important to me, I respect the decision of the mods / admins here to restrict me, and I'm sure they have more important things to do with their time than look at my appeal. Just know that, although we have our disagreements, I'm an ally in the leftist movement and in the struggle for a more just, socialist society, and I really do appreciate the time I spent here. Be well.

-Kindness :)

[Art Vandelay]

That's not the reason Sentinel gave in his "Admin Actions" post. Also, I'm still not aware of how that breaks any forum rule, though I understand that I could be (and probably am) wrong or mistaken in some way.

Either way, I want to drop the appeal. It simply isn't that important to me, I respect the decision of the mods / admins here to restrict me, and I'm sure they have more important things to do with their time than look at my appeal. Just know that, although we have our disagreements, I'm an ally in the leftist movement and in the struggle for a more just, socialist society, and I really do appreciate the time I spent here. Be well.

-Kindness :)

Your thread in the BA forum is still open, but if you'd like me to raise the point that you no longer wish to appeal your restriction, then I will; if you do wish to take up that reasoning (it is not worth your time) then I commend you because the internet is far from serious business. But I must disregard, given the past comments you have made, that you are an "ally in the leftist movement"; something I would say about many of the members of this board, for the record.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Hey 9mm, regarding unrestrictions how long do these things usually take? It seems like mine is taking forever.

[Art Vandelay]

Hey 9mm, regarding unrestrictions how long do these things usually take? It seems like mine is taking forever.

Yes I am sorry that it takes so long, but the policy is to let a poll to run for a full week to allow any BA members the chance to see the poll and to potentially change their vote. Your's should be done soon if I am not mistaken, I will double check right away though.

Edit: While I cannot divulge any results, you should know the result tmro morning.

[Sentinel]

InsertNameHere has been unrestricted by BA vote. The appeals for unrestriction made by users GreenCommunism and Kindness have been rejected.

[SuchianFrog735]

What kind of system is it that you're so adamant on remaining accurate to the title of this forum?

[NGNM85]

Once again; I am requesting that my Restriction be lifted. For once, I'll keep it short, and sweet; I am Pro-choice, I have always been Pro-choice, and I will always be Pro-choice. (Of course; this is hardly a revelation.) If any members of the administration have any questions; you can feel free to send me a PM.

[Lucretia]

Once again; I am requesting that my Restriction be lifted. For once, I'll keep it short, and sweet; I am Pro-choice, I have always been Pro-choice, and I will always be Pro-choice. (Of course; this is hardly a revelation.) If any members of the administration have any questions; you can feel free to send me a PM.

There are a handful of reasons why you should be restricted. Your position on abortion would only be one. Others are your notorious reformism, your shilling for Obama and his policies, your refusal to admit that the Democratic Party is a pro-capitalist party, etc. On a forum where the BA gets a looooot of stuff wrong, I am pleased to say that your restriction is one thing they got right.

[Zaza]

Got accused of "homophobia, sexism, anti-feminism, nationalism, support of imperialists" etc. et.c
Got restricted for "Kemalism" and "Anti-Feminism".
Kemalism isn't against the rules, as even leftist parties use its ideology. Plus I am also a Marxist.
And getting accused of anti-feminism is easy when someone is not able to understand textes.

Appealing this restriction.

[Luís Henrique]

I see that user Lucretia was restricted. The Admin Actions thread says it is because s/he is a liberal at best and a troll at worst. I have never seen any evidence of either, so I would like to see an admin pointing to what posts by Lucretia reveal his/her liberal-trollish tendencies.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

I second Luis' point. Lucretia has stuck to an unpopular opinion regarding a specific event and while I think he is wholly wrong this cannot constitute an opposing ideology. The restriction, without further evidence, is unjust.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I second Luis' point. Lucretia has stuck to an unpopular opinion regarding a specific event and while I think he is wholly wrong this cannot constitute an opposing ideology. The restriction, without further evidence, is unjust.

Insofar as this is the case, Lucretia's was arguing in a trolling manner, ignoring things said and constantly repeating erroneous points.

[Hit The North]

Insofar as this is the case, Lucretia's was arguing in a trolling manner, ignoring things said and constantly repeating erroneous points.

Sticking to your guns is not "trolling behaviour". As for his points being erroneous this can only be a matter of opinion and not fact given the contested nature of the evidence under discussion. Most importantly, restriction is not a penalty exacted for trolling behaviour. Even if the majority of the BA believe Lucretia was trolling then infractions are the correct response. Am I wrong?

This case is clearly a case of some BA members feeling affronted by Lucretia's arguments and seeking administrative retribution, imo.

[Lucretia]

I appreciate you all sticking up for me guys, but seriously , don't sweat it. If I weren't purged now, I would be at some other point down the line for some other bullshit reason dressed up in official sounding language. And to be honest, my time on this forum has run its course.

I am reminded of the classic line in Casablanca where, discussing the death of somebody in custody, Captain Renault, played by Claude Rains, says, "I am making out the report now. We haven't quite decided yet whether he committed suicide or died trying to escape." Currently the BA are making out my report, and trying to determine whether I'm a "troll" or a "liberal." Oh, and did I mention that Rains was playing a fascist collaborationist in that role? Draw your own conclusions about the BA behavior.

[Luís Henrique]

Insofar as this is the case, Lucretia's was arguing in a trolling manner, ignoring things said and constantly repeating erroneous points.

So s/he was arguing in a trolling manner in a specific thread - while having a long, solid, consistent history of good or at least honest contributions? This makes him/her a liberal?

Most of us have eventually trolled in one thread or other, some much more consistently than Lucretia, and even so remain unrestricted.

Luís Henrique

[Le Libérer]

So s/he was arguing in a trolling manner in a specific thread - while having a long, solid, consistent history of good or at least honest contributions? This makes him/her a liberal?

Most of us have eventually trolled in one thread or other, some much more consistently than Lucretia, and even so remain unrestricted.

Luís Henrique
Luis, this user has a history of doing this. Anyone who searches his posts can see it. And he is right, he may or may not get to stay on revleft, that is being discussed right now. I asked him 3 times in that thread to redirect the way he was presenting his position and he failed to do so. He continued on and ended up getting restricted. We shall see.

[Lucretia]

Luis, this user has a history of doing this. Anyone who searches his posts can see it. And he is right, he may or may not get to stay on revleft, that is being discussed right now. I asked him 3 times in that thread to direct the way he was presenting his position and he failed to do so. He continued on and ended up getting restricted. We shall see.

Oh, please. At least be a principled "leftist" and be honest about what's going on here: you are pissed off at the substance of my position and want to shut me up. Fine. It's your little playground, and you have the admin powers to do as you please. Stop pretending that this has some kind of formal procedural basis.

You said I was trolling because I mentioned that it's not even close to conclusive that Zimmerman used the words "coons" in his phone conversation with operators. I posted a link to a news report created by a major news organization in the thread that featured a cleaned up audio clip of that call, and Zimmerman clearly seemed to be saying "cold." This is trolling how?

Or wait, I guess it's liberal because I am not assuming that the network in question was staffed by racists trying to get Zimmerman off the hook. This is the problem when you invent legalistic rationales out of whole cloth to arrive at a preconceived conclusion: it's always difficult to choose which to use. Decisions, decisions.

[Le Libérer]

I wish you good luck.

[Bostana]

Yes, and good luck to you the next time you choose to run on a small business platform, while banning people on your playground for "liberalism."
You were sympathizing with a man who murdered a teenager because he was 'acting suspicious' (in other words he was black)

[Lucretia]

You were sympathizing with a man who murdered a teenager because he was 'acting suspicious' (in other words he was black)

What's so ridiculous about this entire episode is the way people have viciously attacked me when they apparently can't be bothered to acquaint themselves with what it is that I'm actually arguing. How many times did I say in the thread that Zimmerman was a fucking idiot for following Martin, that he has delusions of rent-a-cop status, and that I had no idea what transpired that evening apart from the facts everybody agrees with: that Zimmerman followed Martin, that Martin and Zimmerman got into a fight, and that Zimmerman shot Martin lethally.

It is POSSIBLE that Zimmerman targeted Martin for being black, and pulled the trigger because he hates black people. It is POSSIBLE that Martin aggressively started waylaying on Zimmerman because he didn't like the fact that Zimmerman was following him, and he was beating Zimmerman's ass so bad that Zimmerman shot him out of desperation. The point is that we don't start lynch mobs to threaten violence against people based on speculation about what might have happened. Except on revleft, I suppose. Then we pat ourselves on the back for not being "liberals" on race. Rich.

[The Feral Underclass]

The guy is an apologist for racist murderers. He should be banned.

[Paul Pott]

Unbelievable. Hang, draw, and quarter, put head on spike.

[Ele'ill]

strip the flesh, salt the wounds

[Lucretia]

strip the flesh, salt the wounds

Why? You hungry?

[Le Communiste]

Mmmm jerky

[Ele'ill]

Why? You hungry?

things are getting wild on revleft

[Paul Pott]

Then we cook it.

[Le Communiste]

Then we cook it.

Sushi cannot be cooked. Gotta love sushi

Wait its Lushi

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

wtf

[NGNM85]

It's hardly a secret that Lucretia, and myself aren't exactly; ' BFF's.' In addition to a number of philosophical disagreements; I've always found them to be hostile, and generally disagreeable. (I'm sure the feeling is mutual.) That being said, based on my fairly close reading of the FAQ; none of those traits, unpleasant as they may be, at times, constitutes a Restrictable offense. (Furthermore, if that is to be the case; a lot of people are soon to be in a lot of trouble.) I see absolutely no reason why this member should be consigned to; 'Opposing Ideologies.' (Much like myself, albiet; for entirely different reasons.) What I find most disquieting is that this appears to be but the lastest manifestation of a disturbing pattern of behavior. At the risk of belaboring the point, in summation; this member should be restored to normal status. (...and they aren't the only one.)

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's hardly a secret that Lucretia, and myself aren't exactly; ' BFF's.' In addition to a number of philosophical disagreements; I've always found them to be hostile, and generally disagreeable. (I'm sure the feeling is mutual.) That being said, based on my fairly close reading of the FAQ; none of those traits, unpleasant as they may be, at times, constitutes a Restrictable offense. (Furthermore, if that is to be the case; a lot of people are soon to be in a lot of trouble.) I see absolutely no reason why this member should be consigned to; 'Opposing Ideologies.' (Much like myself, albiet; for entirely different reasons.) What I find most disquieting is that this appears to be but the lastest manifestation of a disturbing pattern of behavior. At the risk of belaboring the point, in summation; this member should be restored to normal status. (...and they aren't the only one.)


You know, I think restricting and banning people who disagree with you constitutes as unpleasant behavior.

[Igor]

isnt the whole point of restriction to restrict people who disagree with us enough

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

isnt the whole point of restriction to restrict people who disagree with us enough

No, it's for restricting opposing ideologies not opposing opinions. The latter is why we have a forum in the first place and why this site isn't just a big flashing gif proclaiming the glory of insurectionism

[Igor]

we've always restricted plenty of people who consider themselves revolutionary leftists and even be well-read on many aspects of theory but still have reactionary opinions on single issues which often are quite telling of the big picture. it's never been exclusively a cappie zoo and that it should never be, even commies can have and v often do have absolutely terrible and stupid opinions w no place here

like lucretia

[baronci]

No, it's for restricting opposing ideologies not opposing opinions. The latter is why we have a forum in the first place and why this site isn't just a big flashing gif proclaiming the glory of insurectionism

i'm pretty sure going out of your way to defend the bourgeois justice system (in a state with a notoriously reactionary legal history) all while ignoring the fact that institutional racism is extremely prevalent constitutes "opposing ideology".

in other news, a black woman who fired warning shots at her abusive husband in florida has just been sentenced to 20 years in jail

[Old Bolshie]

Despite my past disagreements with Lucretia I have to point out again to the strange fact that trolls who explicitly violated the rules of this forum were left alone while people who actually contribute for this forum are banned or restricted right away for unclear facts.

[#FF0000]

tbh i don't think lucretia should've been restricted or banned based on anything in the zimmerman thread but instead banned for being just a generally disingenuous and dishonest in debate.

then again being a shitty poster isn't against the rules and I also think consistent rudeness irl should be punishable by death so

[Sentinel]

Since people are ignoring the very explicit reminders that this thread is not for discussion on board policy but merely for restricted members making appeals to be unrestricted, and it's spiraled out of control, I'm closing and restarting it.

Anyone willing to make an appeal to be unrestricted is permitted to do so again, in the new thread. Others will be infracted, no matter what side they are on in this particular debacle.

Closed and unstickied.