Why the harsh restriction policy?

[The Machine]

I understand that a restriction policy is necessary to make sure every thread doesnt become a capitalist versus socialism debate, but I don't think enforcing a party line is very productive. A lot of the restrict-able offenses on here don't make somebody an anti-capitalist reactionary who doesn't have anything to add to the debate. For example, the position on abortion everyone has to agree with pretty much excludes 99 percent of the population, including most of the pro-choice movement, and the implication that if someone has a problem with it they are a sexist is frankly dumb unless sexism doesn't actually mean anything and everyone but enlightened radicals are sexists. Hell, you can be pro-life and it doesn't make you any less of an anti-capitalist, even if I disagree with you. The position may be sexist effect if actually implemented, but its similar to people who are against affirmative action policies. I disagree with it and it would have the effect of perpetuating racism, but I don't think those people are necessarily racist. I also don't think that Zionism or "supporting imperialism" should be a restrictable offence, even though I vehemently disagree with it, since a good chunk of this forum are apologists for the USSR, shitholes like North Korea, and Soviet Imperialism. There's no good reason for mutualists to be restricted either, unless we're going to turn this into a strictly Marxist forum and "liberalism" will officially become a restrictable offense. Even the hated primitivists should be brought into the fold since half of the BA are closet primmies anyways, and most of the anti-imps are basically thirdworldists so let them in too. Hell, I'd say even open the forum up to the more radical old-school social dems who want to abolish capitalism if they still exist.
I guess my point is that nobody is ideologically pure. Marx was a sexist, an anti-semite, and supported US expansion into mexico, Kropotkin supported World War I, Che was a huge homophobe and violated the fuck out of some human rights. I think if someone legitimately claims to support revolution but holds a few reactionary positions there's no reason to restrict them. The threat of restriction and banning is too much of a part of the culture of this board and I've never seen anything like it anywhere else. I don't think it adds anything to the discourse and probably scares away good posters and people who want to learn.

[NGNM85]

For example, the position on abortion everyone has to agree with pretty much excludes 99 percent of the population, including most of the pro-life movement,...

The forum's official abortion policy would exclude nine-tenths of the Pro-Choice movement.



and the implication that if someone has a problem with it they are a sexist is frankly dumb unless sexism doesn't actually mean anything and everyone but enlightened radicals are sexists. Hell, you can be pro-life and it doesn't make you any less of an anti-capitalist, even if I disagree with you.

It certainly appears that that either sexism, or the nuances of the abortion debate, (Perhaps; both.) are not well understood.

[The Machine]

The forum's official abortion policy would exclude nine-tenths of the Pro-Choice movement.


ah yeah shitty typo

[The Machine]

but yeah what's "reactionary" or not can really be subjective. for example i find it a fuck of a lot more despicable for someone to support the north korean state than to be pro-life, let alone being pro choice and at odds with the revleft abortion policy.

[Le Socialiste]

For example, the position on abortion everyone has to agree with pretty much excludes 99 percent of the population, including most of the pro-life movement, and the implication that if someone has a problem with it they are a sexist is frankly dumb unless sexism doesn't actually mean anything and everyone but enlightened radicals are sexists. Hell, you can be pro-life and it doesn't make you any less of an anti-capitalist, even if I disagree with you.

You don't think restricting a woman's control over her own body and what she chooses to do with it is an example of sexism? If you think that's an acceptable or even non-restrictable stance to have you're on the wrong forum. This isn't the first time I've seen you make excuses for certain aspects of sexism, including gender roles between men and women. Bluntly put, pro-lifers will be restricted, end of story.

I'll let others deal with the rest of your post because I don't have much time to address all of it. But we have a "harsh" restriction policy for a reason. This site isn't meant to be all-inclusive, it's for revolutionary leftists only - specifically those who are anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc. etc. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other forums with less "strict" policies to choose from, but Revleft isn't one of them.

[NGNM85]

You don't think restricting a woman's control over her own body and what she chooses to do with it is an example of sexism?

Unless it's specifically predicated on her gender, then it isn't sexism. Not literally, anyhow.

Also; I don't know you very well, but I can guaruntee you don't seriously believe that the right to bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, let alone that this right is the exclusive province of a particular gender. (Which is actually sexist.) For one thing; absolute morals are logically impossible, from a utilitarian perspective. Etc., etc.


If you think that's an acceptable or even non-restrictable stance to have you're on the wrong forum. This isn't the first time I've seen you make excuses for certain aspects of sexism, including gender roles between men and women. Bluntly put, pro-lifers will be restricted, end of story.

Like I said; most Pro-Choicers should be Restricted, under the forum's abortion policy. I happen to know a thing or two about that.

[The Machine]

You don't think restricting a woman's control over her own body and what she chooses to do with it isn't an example of sexism? If you think that's an acceptable or even non-restrictable stance to have you're on the wrong forum. This isn't the first time I've seen you make excuses for certain aspects of sexism, including gender roles between men and women. Bluntly put, pro-lifers will be restricted, end of story.

No, I said that people can be misguided and pro-life and aren't necesarily sexist, but no I don't think restricting a woman's control over what she chooses to do with her body is necessarily sexist. For example, proponents of drug prohibition (who I also vehemently disagree with) are not necessarily sexist. Veiled threats aren't cool, I'm not trolling or being a dick I'm just expressing my opinion on how ba policy and how it can be made better on this board. And if you want to accuse me of sexism, go ahead and make a thread and lay out your argument, or stop making personal attacks when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is very unfortunate to see someone, from for example Tunisia, restricted over this and then leave. It was nice to have such a different perspective from a different area of the world, and now he's gone because he advocated an abortion policy that would be progressive in every single country on earth (including Westerns), and him even being from a conservative global region.

I don't think being pro-life is necessarily sexist, although often, and usually, it is.
Let me see if I can explain.
If you ban drugs for both males and females, because you believe that women shouldn't use drugs, it's sexist. Whom it affects is not relevant, the underlying motivation is relevant here. Even tough the measure affects both men and women equality, it's still sexist since your intent is stopping women from doing it.
The underlying motivation for banning abortion after a certain period is not always due to a patriarchal mentality. In fact, most who are pro-choice and yet support restricting abortion after, say, 30 weeks, are not sexist. While most in favour of banning abortion entirely are, I think, usually sexist.

EDIT:
If we are going to be consistent we need to ban all those who say they wouldn't date a transwoman because they reject the notion that she really is a woman, which is Transphobic.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-date-t113436/index.html?t=113436

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-date-t170332/index.html?p=2418088

[hetz]

Do you believe women shouldn't use drugs while pregnant?
Would that be sexist too?

[The Machine]

goddamn yall are missing the point its not about the abortion policy its about the broader policies and board culture of restriction. i understand why restricting abortion is sexist.

[The Machine]

out of curiousity what's the official policy on people who support one child only in china?

[NGNM85]

goddamn yall are missing the point its not about the abortion policy its about the broader policies and board culture of restriction. i understand why restricting abortion is sexist.

It isn't, at least, not most of the time. The fundamental belief of the Pro-Life movement is that human beings contain a magic essence, an; 'immortal soul', which is present at the moment of conception. Therefore; to terminate a pregnancy is tantamount to homicide. The internal logic is sound, even is the premesis is absurd. My point is that the Pro-Life movement is driven by religion, not sexism.

[The Machine]

It isn't, at least, not most of the time. The fundamental belief of the Pro-Life movement is that human beings contain a magic essence, an; 'immortal soul', which is present at the moment of conception. Therefore; to terminate a pregnancy is tantamount to homicide. The internal logic is sound, even is the premesis is absurd. My point is that the Pro-Life movement is driven by religion, not sexism.

they may not be motivated by sexism, but preventing women from having access to abortion and birth control is a sexist policy

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Do you believe women shouldn't use drugs while pregnant?
Would that be sexist too?
What drugs, exactly? This is a terrible analogy.

[The Machine]

forget i said anything about abortion guys jesus

[hetz]

It's not an analogy actually. Just a question.
And, what does it matter what drugs? Alcohol, cocaine, MDMA, whatever.

[NGNM85]

they may not be motivated by sexism, but preventing women from having access to abortion and birth control is a sexist policy

Not necessarily. In fact; I'd bet in most cases, it isn't. One can actually take the hard Pro-Life position, that is categorically opposing abortion, in all circumstances, (Many, if not most Pro-Lifers make exceptions for rape, or the life of the mother.) without having a sexist particle in your body. I doubt this is representative, but it's logically possible.

Furthermore; most Pro-Choice individuals favor some, admittedly, very minimal restriction on abortions, namely arbitrary abortions after 28 weeks, which is illegal in virtually every country that has legal abortion, except Canada. As far as I can see; there's no demand for such procedures. This is only controversial on RevLeft.

[hetz]

It is very unfortunate to see someone, from for example Tunisia, restricted over this and then leave. It was nice to have such a different perspective from a different area of the world, and now he's gone because he advocated an abortion policy that would be progressive in every single country on earth (including Westerns), and him even being from a conservative global region.
I missed this before.
I agree 100%, but strange are the ways of revleft...

[The Machine]

Not necessarily. In fact; I'd bet in most cases, it isn't. One can actually take the hard Pro-Life position, that is categorically opposing abortion, in all circumstances, (Many, if not most Pro-Lifers make exceptions for rape, or the life of the mother.) without having a sexist particle in your body. I doubt this is representative, but it's logically possible.


yeah, my point is that the actual policies, when implemented, further sexism and the institutional oppression of women regardless of the motivations of those who support them.

[NGNM85]

yeah, my point is that the actual policies, when implemented, further sexism and the institutional oppression of women regardless of the motivations of those who support them.

You could say the same thing about AM radio. In order to be said to be sexist, there must be evidence of sexism, IE; the thing, or person must discriminate between the sexes, on the basis of sex. Without this; there is no sexism.

[Le Socialiste]

No, I said that people can be misguided and pro-life and aren't necesarily sexist, but no I don't think restricting a woman's control over what she chooses to do with her body is necessarily sexist. For example, proponents of drug prohibition (who I also vehemently disagree with) are not necessarily sexist. Veiled threats aren't cool, I'm not trolling or being a dick I'm just expressing my opinion on how ba policy and how it can be made better on this board. And if you want to accuse me of sexism, go ahead and make a thread and lay out your argument, or stop making personal attacks when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

No one's threatening you, nor have I accused you of trolling. I'm simply pointing out that this isn't the first time I've seen you post something like this. If you'd like to express your opinion regarding this site's policies that's fine, but the likelihood of Revleft's stance on those who are pro-"life" changing is close to none.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

out of curiousity what's the official policy on people who support one child only in china?

It's sexist.

[NGNM85]

No one's threatening you, nor have I accused you of trolling. I'm simply pointing out that this isn't the first time I've seen you post something like this. If you'd like to express your opinion regarding this site's policies that's fine, but the likelihood of Revleft's stance on those who are pro-"life" changing is close to none.

Again; RevLeft's abortion policies excludes the overwhelming majority of Pro-Choice individuals, including myself. It also happens to be irrational, and unscientific, but who cares, right? However; I fully agree that the likelihood of this absurd policy changing anytime soon is slim, to none.

[The Machine]

You could say the same thing about AM radio. In order to be said to be sexist, there must be evidence of sexism, IE; the thing, or person must discriminate between the sexes, on the basis of sex. Without this; there is no sexism.

im not well versed in "womens struggle" shit, but basically without abortion and birth control women are essentially subjugated into the role of being a mother without having any say in the matter. i think your just being pendantic though, this is the same line of reasoning that says gay marriage bans aren't homophobic because straight people of the same sex can't get married either.

[NGNM85]

It's sexist.

Not literally.

[NGNM85]

im not well versed in "womens struggle" shit, but basically without abortion and birth control women are essentially subjugated into the role of being a mother without having any say in the matter.

You're overthinking things. No offense, but it's amazing to me this concept is so poorly understood. All bigotry; sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, is, essentially, structurally the same. A particular cross section of humanity is discriminated against because of some shared arbitrary characteristic, such as race, gender, etc. For example; if you do not discriminate against a particular gender, because of their gender; you cannot be a sexist, literally speaking.


i think your just being pendantic though,

Feel free to consult a dictionary, or encyclopedia, if you don't believe me.


this is the same line of reasoning that says gay marriage bans aren't homophobic because straight people of the same sex can't get married either.

I've never heard anyone say that before. In any case, it's ridiculous because same-sex marriage bans are enacted for the specific purpose of disenfranchising homosexuals.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think it's extrremely sad to see communists restricted because of their prolife position. Being prolife doesnt make them any less caring about the struggle for socialism, and blocking them from discussing with possibly the only leftists they know (like me) except for in OI is just sad. They cant discuss anything except OIs cause its the only place they can post and thats not what we all came to RevLeft for.

[The Machine]

You're overthinking things. No offense, but it's amazing to me this concept is so poorly understood. All bigotry; sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, is, essentially, structurally the same. A particular cross section of humanity is discriminated against because of some shared arbitrary characteristic, such as race, gender, etc. For example; if you do not discriminate against a particular gender, because of their gender; you cannot be a sexist, literally speaking.

So I guess female circumcision isn't sexist, literally speaking?


Feel free to consult a dictionary, or encyclopedia, if you don't believe me.

It's not about a dictionary definition it's about the effect it has on the livelihoods and reproductive freedom of women.


I've never heard anyone say that before. In any case, it's ridiculous because same-sex marriage bans are enacted for the specific purpose of disenfranchising homosexuals.

It doesn't matter why they're enacted, the effect they have is much more important. And most people will tell you they are for "traditional marriage" or the family or whatever.

[NGNM85]

I think it's extrremely sad to see communists restricted because of their prolife position. Being prolife doesnt make them any less caring about the struggle for socialism, and blocking them from discussing with possibly the only leftists they know (like me) except for in OI is just sad. They cant discuss anything except OIs cause its the only place they can post and thats not what we all came to RevLeft for.

I don't think there are any Pro-Lifers on the boards, right now. In any case; I have always been strongly Pro-Choice.

[NGNM85]

So I guess female circumcision isn't sexist, literally speaking?

It is; because female circumcision is radically different from male circumcision. (Which I'm not so keen on, anyhow.) These girls are mutilated. Furthermore; unlike in male circumcision, female circumcision makes it basically impossible for these unfortunate women to experience sexual arousal, in fact; that's the whole purpose, which is absolutely sexist.


It's not about a dictionary definition it's about the effect it has on the livelihoods and reproductive freedom of women.

Sexism is a word. It has a meaning. You can't just apply it to whatever you like. I mean, you can, but that doesn't mean anything.


It doesn't matter why they're enacted, the effect they have is much more important.

See above.


And most people will tell you they are for "traditional marriage" or the family or whatever.

As opposed to gay marriages, implying that they are unnatural, or destructive to the family.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Not literally.

The state is mandating what a woman can and can't do with her own body. I don't give a shit about silly notions of population control. It's sexist when you force a woman to term and give birth just like it's sexist when your force a woman not to go to term and abort. Women should have full autonomy over their own bodies in this regard.

The one child policy is literally sexist; sexism in most political contexts denotes the oppression of women and repression of women's rights and furthers patriarchy.

[ed miliband]

I don't think there are any Pro-Lifers on the boards, right now. In any case; I have always been strongly Pro-Choice.

i swear your restriction is related to your stance on abortion tho :confused:

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't think there are any Pro-Lifers on the boards, right now. In any case; I have always been strongly Pro-Choice.

I've seen a few, especially on the "Alternative to Abortion" thread. They're all restricted. Even I was almost restricted because I don't support abortion once the fetus is sentient.

[The Machine]

It is; because female circumcision is radically different from male circumcision. (Which I'm not so keen on, anyhow.) These girls are mutilated. Furthermore; unlike in male circumcision, female circumcision makes it basically impossible for these unfortunate women to experience sexual arousal, in fact; that's the whole purpose, which is absolutely sexist.

Forcing a woman to give birth relegates her to the pre-Sexual Revolution status as simply a mother and a caregiver who cannot express her sexuality as she desires. Furthermore a lot of the time pro-lifers will argue against abortion because it encourages "consequence-free sex"


Sexism is a word. It has a meaning. You can't just apply it to whatever you like. I mean, you can, but that doesn't mean anything.

Sexism is a system and policies that impede on women's reproductive freedom advance that system.

[NGNM85]

i swear your restriction is related to your stance on abortion tho :confused:
It is. You can be Pro-Choice and still be Restricted, in fact; most Pro-Choicers should be Restricted, according to forum policy. Like most people who are Pro-Choice; I support abortion, for any reason, up to 28 weeks, but only for medical emergencies, afterwards.

[NGNM85]

I've seen a few, especially on the "Alternative to Abortion" thread. They're all restricted. Even I was almost restricted because I don't support abortion once the fetus is sentient.

You're misunderstanding the phrase; 'Pro-Life.' The term; 'Pro-Life' refers to a narrow ideological spectrum of individuals who oppose abortion, on religious grounds. Some oppose all abortions, categorically, but many allow exceptions for rape, or for the life of the mother. That's it. So; unless you oppose virtually all abortions, for religious reasons,(Which are the only reasons one could have for doing so.) you're not Pro-Life. If you only oppose abortion after 28 weeks, except for medical emergencies, like I do; you're Pro-Choice. In fact, most people who are Pro-Choice oppose such procedures, which are illegal in virtually every country that has legalized abortion, to my knowledge, except for Canada.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You're misunderstanding the phrase; 'Pro-Life.' The term; 'Pro-Life' refers to a narrow ideological spectrum of individuals who oppose abortion, on religious grounds. Some oppose all abortions, categorically, but many allow exceptions for rape, or for the life of the mother. That's it. So; unless you oppose virtually all abortions, for religious reasons,(Which are the only reasons one could have for doing so.) you're not Pro-Life. If you only oppose abortion after 28 weeks, except for medical emergencies, like I do; you're Pro-Choice. In fact, most people who are Pro-Choice oppose such procedures, which are illegal in virtually every country that has legalized abortion, to my knowledge, except for Canada.

Prolifers arent nessecarily religious.

[The Machine]

look as fun as this abortion discussion has been can we go back to the op? like lets talk about mutualists. what's the purpose of restricting them? is there any reason outside of the marxist sympathies of even the anarchists on the ba? how does it help the discussions on this site to exclude them? to my knowledge, they believe in revolution and are leftists.

[NGNM85]

Forcing a woman to give birth relegates her to the pre-Sexual Revolution status as simply a mother and a caregiver who cannot express her sexuality as she desires.

Banning, or prohibiting abortion and contraception would very conceivably negatively impact women. That does not make it fundamentally sexist. If that was the sole criteria; capitalism would be sexist.


Furthermore a lot of the time pro-lifers will argue against abortion because it encourages "consequence-free sex"

However; that's not why they oppose it. Nobody wants to outlaw abortion because it (allegedly) promotes promiscuity. The want to outlaw abortion because they believe it is a crime against god.


Sexism is a system and policies that impede on women's reproductive freedom advance that system.

I think you're conflating; 'sexism', and; 'patriarchy.'

In any case; you're wrong. Sexism is descriminating against a particular gender, because of their gender. Those are the sufficient conditions of; 'sexism.'

[NGNM85]

Prolifers arent nessecarily religious.

Yes, they are. I mean, maybe you can find one, or two, but these are extremely rare statistical anomalies. The Pro-Life movement is a religious movement.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

look as fun as this abortion discussion has been can we go back to the op? like lets talk about mutualists. what's the purpose of restricting them? is there any reason outside of the marxist sympathies of even the anarchists on the ba? how does it help the discussions on this site to exclude them? to my knowledge, they believe in revolution and are leftists.
Because mutualists support a market and, by extension, a form of capitalism


do not pass go, do not collect $200

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Banning, or prohibiting abortion and contraception would very conceivably negatively impact women. That does not make it fundamentally sexist. If that was the sole criteria; capitalism would be sexist.

Capitalism is sexist. Further the above bans and prohibitions listed are in fact (literal) sexist policies specifically targeting and discriminating against women.


I think you're conflating; 'sexism', and; 'patriarchy.'

The two are intimately related and you know it.


In any case; you're wrong. Sexism is descriminating against a particular gender, because of their gender. Those are the sufficient conditions of; 'sexism.'

So you are indeed making this odd semantic argument. While sexism technically can apply to both genders it is most commonly applied to the oppression, discrimination, etc. of women. This can't really be denied unless context means nothing to you.

[The Machine]

Because mutualists support a market and, by extension, a form of capitalism


do not pass go, do not collect $200

It could be and has been argued Marxist-Leninism is also a form of capitalism, as well as being generally abhorrent and gross yet apologists for those regimes get a pass and a market is not necessarily capitalist.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

It could be and has been argued Marxist-Leninism is also a form of capitalism, as well as being generally abhorrent and gross yet apologists for those regimes get a pass
Starting off most of the M-Ls on this board I'm sure are pretty cool people despite my differences with them on a theoretical level, but it's my understanding that M-Ls were once restricted on this site. In any case, I don't think any marxist here will try to claim that DotP can exist outside of the confines of capitalism, but the difference is that the mutualist goal is another form of capitalism, albeit nominally more socially managed [when in reality capitalism is always managed by capital itself], not to destroy capitalism in its entirety (as is the goal of M-Ls and other communists).




and a market is not necessarily capitalist.
Market necessitates forms of restricted property, commodity production, stratified economic power, capital, ergo ... capitalism

[The Machine]

markets existed before capitalism

[PC LOAD LETTER]

markets existed before capitalism
If you want to get pedantic there were markets before capitalism existed as a global system, however in modern terms capital still existed in those markets and we can't reduce the productive capacity and technological capability of the world back to precapitalist levels so it's a moot point anyways.


Any market will be governed by the laws of capital, even on the local level and even examples that existed before capitalism was codified. I don't see how capital accumulation by a blacksmith in Canaan resulting in his becoming more economically powerful than his blacksmith brethren is fundamentally different than someone doing the same thing in 18th century England, or 21st century America other than the obvious sophistication and level of development of the modern economy.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It could be and has been argued Marxist-Leninism is also a form of capitalism, as well as being generally abhorrent and gross yet apologists for those regimes get a pass and a market is not necessarily capitalist. The difference is that Marxist-Leninists are into making communism at some point or other, while the mutualist wants capitalism forever.

[The Machine]

mutualists want a classless stateless society. i didnt know you had to be a communist to post here tho

[o well this is ok I guess]

mutualists want a classless stateless society. i didnt know you had to be a communist to post here tho Hey man I don't make the rules I'm just explaining the difference

[PC LOAD LETTER]

mutualists want a classless stateless society. i didnt know you had to be a communist to post here tho
Yes, you need to be a communist to post outside of the OI section.


A market cannot exist within a classless stateless society, as centralization over long periods of time will lend itself to the reformation of a state (if a state in the colloquial sense is 'destroyed' somehow in the first place) and the mere existence of a market (which, again, implies differential economic power and restricted property) presupposes the existence of classes.


This is a similar criticism of 'anarcho'-capitalism, where property and capital will accumulate over an undefined period of time that will create a de facto state (assuming a level playing field could have been established in the first place) as it obtains more and more economic power over those who are subjected to its influence. Eventually, there is a large business or group of cooperating businesses, who collect rent, adjudicate, employ, and police. At what point is it no longer 'anarcho'-capitalism?

[The Machine]

Yes, you need to be a communist to post outside of the OI section.


A market cannot exist within a classless stateless society, as centralization over long periods of time will lend itself to the reformation of a state (if a state in the colloquial sense is 'destroyed' somehow in the first place) and the mere existence of a market (which, again, implies differential economic power and restricted property) presupposes the existence of classes.


This is a similar criticism of 'anarcho'-capitalism, where property and capital will accumulate over an undefined period of time that will create a de facto state (assuming a level playing field could have been established in the first place) as it obtains more and more economic power over those who are subjected to its influence. Eventually, there is a large business or group of cooperating businesses, who collect rent, adjudicate, employ, and police. At what point is it no longer 'anarcho'-capitalism?

i dont really identify as a communist, i was under the impression that this site was open to all revolutionary leftists. anyways im not here to argue in favor of mutualism, as i dont know enough about the theory to defend it, im just saying its an anti-capitalist ideology in theory. it seeks to abolish the exploitation of labor, private ownership of the means of production and class society, so whether or not you think it's sustainable or feasible they don't argue for the capitalist mode of production.

[The Machine]

Hey man I don't make the rules I'm just explaining the difference


Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, but that is all that many of us have in common. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

doesnt say anything about the requirement of being a communist

[PC LOAD LETTER]

i dont really identify as a communist, i was under the impression that this site was open to all revolutionary leftists. anyways im not here to argue in favor of mutualism, as i dont know enough about the theory to defend it, im just saying its an anti-capitalist ideology in theory. it seeks to abolish the exploitation of labor, private ownership of the means of production and class society, so whether or not you think it's sustainable or feasible they don't argue for the capitalist mode of production.
They claim they don't argue for an explicitly capitalist MOP, but, again, they're for a market. "Market socialists" are restricted as well.



You're .... not a communist? What do you identify as, I'm curious? :confused:

[The Machine]

They claim they don't argue for an explicitly capitalist MOP, but, again, they're for a market. "Market socialists" are restricted as well.

Eh thats dumb as well I think as long as someone is against the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor theres no reason they shouldn't be allowed to participate.


You're .... not a communist? What do you identify as, I'm curious? :confused:

I identify as an anarchist.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Eh thats dumb as well I think as long as someone is against the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor theres no reason they shouldn't be allowed to participate.



I identify as an anarchist.
What sort of economic system do you advocate?

[The Machine]

What sort of economic system do you advocate?

i guess i would best be described as an anarchist without adjectives

[o well this is ok I guess]

doesn't say anything about the requirement of being a communist I'd sooner read a terms of service agreement than all the reasons someone can get restricted on this site.

I suppose it's thought that the mutualist is not a leftist, but a rightist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, they are. I mean, maybe you can find one, or two, but these are extremely rare statistical anomalies. The Pro-Life movement is a religious movement.

Prolife organizations are almost exclusively religious but yeah there are still some nonreligious prolifers.

[NGNM85]

Capitalism is sexist.

No, it isn't.



Further the above bans and prohibitions listed are in fact (literal) sexist policies specifically targeting and discriminating against women.

No, as I've pointed out, they aren't literally sexist.


The two are intimately related and you know it.

They are related, but they are not the same thing.


So you are indeed making this odd semantic argument.

No, I'm not. Again; if you doubt the veracity of my statements; consult an encyclopedia.


While sexism technically can apply to both genders it is most commonly applied to the oppression, discrimination, etc. of women. This can't really be denied unless context means nothing to you.

Most of the time, that's correct. However; the target of the discrimination is really irrelevent, for these purposes. As I've said; homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, etc., are all, structurally, identical, at their core. The fact remains that; if you do not discriminate against a particular class of humanity, on the basis of some arbitrary shared characteristic, such as gender, race, etc., you are not a bigot, because that's what; 'bigotry' means.

[NGNM85]

Prolife organizations are almost exclusively religious but yeah there are still some nonreligious prolifers.

Again; these individuals are a statistically irrelevent minority. They are so rare, they might as well not exist at all.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

markets existed before capitalism

But they were primitive and not markets as we know today.

The development of modern markets of trade went hand-in-hand with the development of capitalism. In fact, it wouldn't be all that strong to say that the development of markets led to the economic growth that led to towns springing up and undermined the key tenet of Feudalism: the rule of the manorial Lord.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Again; these individuals are a statistically irrelevent minority. They are so rare, they might as well not exist at all.

Wasn't one of their rank President of the USA for 8 years? Some irrelevance, that!

[NGNM85]

Wasn't one of their rank President of the USA for 8 years? Some irrelevance, that!

None of the 44 Presidents of the United States was an atheist, at least; not publicly. It would be impossible, today, (unfortunately.) for a public atheist to be elected President.

[Lord Hargreaves]

On the restriction policy: wouldn't it be easier to have some form of self-regulation? Mods can tell posters if their opinion on a particular topic is considered "unacceptable" or whatever, and that they must refrain from making further comments on the issue within the main forums.

The idea that I can't have a debate with someone on Bakunin's critique of Marx, just as one example, because they happen to hold mildly pro-life views, is utterly moronic

[l'Enfermé]

It's absolutely ridiculous that Juche-ist clowns that support one of the most terrible dictatorships in the world, North Korea, are not restricted, while perfectly sane comrades are restricted for not being "pro-choice", even though they aren't less "pro-choice" than 99 percent of "pro-choice" people(like comrade NGNM; not even the most ultra-radical feminist would insinuate he's a sexist - this "problem" is present only on RevLeft :().

[Thirsty Crow]

It isn't, at least, not most of the time. The fundamental belief of the Pro-Life movement is that human beings contain a magic essence, an; 'immortal soul', which is present at the moment of conception. Therefore; to terminate a pregnancy is tantamount to homicide. The internal logic is sound, even is the premesis is absurd. My point is that the Pro-Life movement is driven by religion, not sexism.
False dichotomy right here.

Sexism might as well be ideologically expressed - for instance, through the prism of one form of evolutionary psychology or religion. The point being that it is ultimately the effect, not the intent, that should be focused upon primarily when dealing with sexism. And, of course, any kind of abortion issue, or advocacy of its restrictions, manifests sexism. Of course, this is a matter of degree.

And of course capitalism tends towards sexism. Don't you see the problem with women as workers from the PoV of capital? Costs and no value produced (apart from the value of future labor power but what capitalist cares for other capitalists having fresh workers 20 years from now) during pregnancy and after birth (maternal leave)?

And there might be a better way of dealing with users who hold what is now a restriction worthy opinion because, unlike what's problematic with pro-capitalists in a practical way, no practical problems, like thread derailing, could really arise. It's just that recent examples such as that of the user from Tunisia show how consistent execution of restriction rules can lead to some problematic results. Not that the site would turn into paradise all of the sudden, but still, the user in question probably could have contributed to the level of debate here in an interesting way.

[Ele'ill]

Thread closed because these types of threads aren't currently allowed in OI and not really on the main board either and the thread has clearly been derailed into another ngnm85 abortion thread of which there is already several if I'm not mistaken.