In response to CC actions...

[Dean]

...I have decided that I will be posting less in these forums, until sufficient change occurs within the CC.

Though I have regularly added respectful, honest, and - what I consider to be - thought provoking material, I have been restricted twice for accusations of homophobia and sexism.

I am neither a homophobe nor a sexist. Anybody who would care to do a penetrating analysis of the posts in question would find themselves in agreeance.

I lieu of this, I am inviting all those who have been restricted, including our capitalist brothers, to join a forum which will allow you to debate rationally and freely with others. It is at the following URL: r e b e l forums .org (http://revleft.com)

RevLeft has disallowed the usage of the forum's name, so I am required to add spaces.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

why aren't you allowed to use that forums name?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:52 AM
why aren't you allowed to use that forums name?
The CC views the forum as a threat. It also has a disdain for the criticism that basically created the forum.

[bcbm]

Conspiracy abounds. :ph34r:

[apathy maybe]

Dear Dean, I was in and out of the CC during the crap about Rebel Forums, I have to say that while I disagree with the actions, I do understand the reasons why.

There was a lot of crap going on, and a lot of spam crapping on about the crap that was being crapped (by both sides actually).

So while I don't really know about your own particular restrictions, I have to say that the RF crap is crap by both sides.


Why not stick around here anyway, you maybe restricted, but if you do not honestly hold the homophobic beliefs (etc.) then you will soon be unrestricted, and if you are not, so what?

Yes you will have to put up with capitalists in your threads, but that is not that bad is it?

Lots of Love,
apathy maybe.

[Dean]

People just disappear.

[Dean]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 2 2006, 09:58 AM
Dear Dean, I was in and out of the CC during the crap about Rebel Forums, I have to say that while I disagree with the actions, I do understand the reasons why.

There was a lot of crap going on, and a lot of spam crapping on about the crap that was being crapped (by both sides actually).

So while I don't really know about your own particular restrictions, I have to say that the RF crap is crap by both sides.


Why not stick around here anyway, you maybe restricted, but if you do not honestly hold the homophobic beliefs (etc.) then you will soon be unrestricted, and if you are not, so what?

Yes you will have to put up with capitalists in your threads, but that is not that bad is it?

Lots of Love,
apathy maybe.
It's not the point, really. The post in question is this: It's about a third down the page (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56311&st=25)

That was what got me restricted, so they say. However, there was no questioning (why, dean, are you sexist?), just another restriction. just like what happened with the homophobic issue.

I am, of course, not sexist. The furthest claims that I make towards sexism are that women are more nurturing in general, which I think if fairly logical, and that men tend to concern themselves with mechanical things more than women do. I implicate that this is a biological trait to some degree, which follows if men have traditionally been the hunters, a tactical concern, as opposed to gatherers.

Mujer claims that I am referring to her feminism in an essay that I wrote years ago about militant feminism of the 60s and 70s that sought to put women ABOVE men. I make it clear that this is what I am referring to, but still she acts as if I am making an assault on her movement.

I also point out that women should and ought to be more involved in politics, because their nurturing capacity - inherant to all humans, but more manifested in mothers particularly - because I think that this is the most important and essential trait that humans have. I am clearly drawing distinctions between sexes, but according to my girlfriend's professor the gender's brain chemistry is dissimilar.



...I have read of the BS on both sides, but I have seen posters who have been up to more than 1000 posts be banned, and I haven't even been here that long. I think that REBFORUMS (http://tinyurl.com/ro95e) will exert pressure for reform here or that it will blossom into a greater community than this one.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

No one takes that place seriously. It doesn't have half the quality of discussion or activity of revleft. You should really evaluate your beliefs before you start complaining so much.

You are a borderline sexist, at least, but the point is that you hold reactionary (non-leftist) views on issues of gender. I imagine that is what got you restricted. Nonsense about women being naturally inclined to nuture and the like.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 2 2006, 12:00 PM
No one takes that place seriously. It doesn't have half the quality of discussion or activity of revleft. You should really evaluate your beliefs before you start complaining so much.

You are a borderline sexist, at least, but the point is that you hold reactionary (non-leftist) views on issues of gender. I imagine that is what got you restricted. Nonsense about women being naturally inclined to nuture and the like.
I don't think you're in much of a place to psychoanalyze me at all. I think its clear that genders which predominantly raise the young of the species have natural nurturing aspects. Clearly, social creatures have this nurturing attribute universally, regardless of gender, but the focus on child rearing that females have had since we were lower primates makes me think that women are probably at least a bit more nurturing than men in regard to essential psychological drives.

To claim that there is no psychological difference between men and women is preposterous. It doesn't make me a sexist to respect that women tend to be more nurturing due to natural drives.

You so - called communists are so full of shit that to you political correctness is insulting a religion's prophet, and at at the same time being so afraid of not adhearing to marx, class warfare or an illogical idea that men and women are exactly the same except in the shape of their body that you just subsume yourself into a disgusting, life - hating culture. This is probably the most pitiful display of soulless socialism I've seen in my life.

As to your comment on Rebel f o rums, you're correct. they're just like you: a bunch of xenophobic idiots who wont be communists past the age of 18, or are so drugged up that they can't tell logic from dogma. Granted, there are a few that care to listen and honestly and respectfully debate. But frankly, this is just a bunch of peopel who hate society and wont even give to charities (even if the charities do create economies). Rebel is just a splinter.

Irionic that communists so avidly support their "enemy" alienation. complete doublespeak.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It is always refreshing when someone takes there restriction in a mature fashion. Anyway, you are saying the fact that women primarily raise children makes them inherently a bit more nuturing. That is hardly true. Women appear more nuturing because they do so in response to being stuck with children more often. That is a much more probable answer. You are essentially (as people in the other thread pointed out) trying to justify something because "you think it sounds right" rather than because it is based in scientific method.

Firstly, not everyone worships Marx here. I certainly do not - I disagree with him on some key issues. As for your criticism of anti-religious views, I could care less what you think. I will never respect religion simply because I do not respect irrational ideas. I like a dislike society in various ways so I disagree with your "we hate society" stereotype. As for the charity issue, I typically choose to volunteer for a charity rather than participate financially, though I do on occasion when asked.

[Dean]

If your antagonism was restraint, than I th9ink my lack thereof had much more integrity.

This isn't even pseudoscience, actutally, though it's painfully obvious to anybody with half of a brain. Studies in monkys or other primates have shown that homosexuality is often caused by estrogen, and male homosexual monkeys - with elevated levels of estrogen than those of average males - often play a role in child rearing that other males would not.

But you're right.. I shouldn't trust scientists.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:36 AM
...I have read of the BS on both sides, but I have seen posters who have been up to more than 1000 posts be banned, and I haven't even been here that long.


What's your point? So what if someone has made over 1000 posts? The quantity has nothing to do with it, only the substance. If someone made 2000 posts and then a reactionary one he/she deserves to be restricted. If someone made 1 post that is reactionary he/she deserves to be restricted.



at at the same time being so afraid of not adhearing to marx,

Whoa, have you even been reading the forums? NOT adhering to Marx?!? Gimme a break; there are so many revisionists, Anarchists, Trotskyists here, the authentic Marxists are certainly the minority in this forum. Don't know where you've been...



I don't think you're in much of a place to psychoanalyze me at all


...they're just like you: a bunch of xenophobic idiots who wont be communists past the age of 18, or are so drugged up that they can't tell logic from dogma... But frankly, this is just a bunch of peopel who hate society and wont even give to charities

Sooo we're not in a place to psychoanalyze you, but you can psychoanalyze all of us? And with vulgar generalizations that are very similar to the kind of idiotic generalizations (whoa you guys are all little kids man eheh!) seen from the reactionaries and right-wingers.



...and I haven't even been here that long.


this is just a bunch of peopel who hate society and wont even give to charities

Wow! So you haven't even been here that long yet you can generalize and psychoanalyze all of us can't you! You even know how many of us give to charities! :lol:

Honestly, how can anyone take you seriously? All you do is whine and complain about everyone and everything, make vulgar generalizations and then ask "Why doesn't anyone wanna play with me?? waaaaa!"


I still don't get your point though; if you feel we're all "xenophobic idiots" that "hate society" and are "so afraid of not adhering to marx" and you've found a place so much better it begs the question: Why would you even care if you were restricted or not? In fact, why are you even here to begin with? Don't you have better things to do with your life than wasting time with such people you clearly have so much disdain for?

[Kurt Crover]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:14 PM
a bunch of xenophobic idiots who wont be communists past the age of 18.


Who here is over 18?

*raises hand*

[Dean]

quantity of posts implies that they are probably not spammers; people i referred to were clearly not spammers. otherwise, there really isn't any ground.

I've made generalizations on what has been said to me, but I also made the point that there were exceptions. some of the things I said were facetious. Thanks for the compelling defnse though, and have fun with your purges stalin.

and on psychoanalysis... it's a lot easier to say that a lot of peopel here hate charity than it is to say that one specific person is borderline sexist without any semblance of a logical argument for it.

[Jazzratt]

So you're fucking off to RA.

I'd say good riddance, but that would imply I gave some kind of shit.

[D_Bokk]

Welcome to the club. CC is quite pathetic, just a bunch of children exerting their "power." I was restricted for saying that "Jewish Capitalist" is just about as anti-Jew as "Christian Right" is anti-Christian. Wouldn't "Islamo-Fascist" is anti-Islam? No one is restricted for saying that. They’re just a bunch of hypocritical children wanting to purge their opposition.

Naturally, "Jewish Capitalist" is an awful slur while the other two are A-Okay.

[t_wolves_fan]

Welcome to the inevitable outcome should you folks ever gain any kind of power.

[Patchd]

Well, the CC is an authoritarian group within a website, this however does not mean that an authoritarian group will take power in reality. I myself am opposed to the CC, but many of those that belong to it are actually opposed to authoritarianism and are pro-socialist democracy in reality.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 2 2006, 02:03 PM



Anyway, you are saying the fact that women primarily raise children makes them inherently a bit more nuturing. That is hardly true. Women appear more nuturing because they do so in response to being stuck with children more often. That is a much more probable answer.

Is it now?

It has nothing to do with the fact that, biologically, infant girls like human faces more and males like objects more?

That doesn't play any role at all? That girls are better at picking up social rules and order at a young age, and are better at picking up body language or other cues?

Young children, young girls, are much more adept than young boys at picking up when people are sad or upset. Is this societal? Does society force boys to not understand non-vocal clues? Does society force girls to? I very much doubt it.

I think a better summation is that girls are just naturally better at some forms of social interaction.

Now, a lot of what passes as 'standard sex roles' is myth. Young boys actually talk more than young girls. But they talk about different thigns, they have different interests.

Some of this is undoubtably socialogical, most of it even. But not all of it. So to point out that there are sex differences, occasionally drastic ones, is not to commit any sort of crime other than thoughtcrime.



You are essentially (as people in the other thread pointed out) trying to justify something because "you think it sounds right" rather than because it is based in scientific method.

I'm not an expert of psychology (though I hope to be), but even I see how baseless this charge is.

Look up what happened when a male child was raised a girl. The doctors at the time thought it wouldn't matter, the kid would just adapt, because sex roles are societal. Look up what happened with that poor kid, and then come back and tell me sex differences are all societal.

The kid was raised as a girl from an infant and because of it his development was absolutely hampered. Girls and boys are not interchangable.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:49 PM
Well, the CC is an authoritarian group within a website, this however does not mean that an authoritarian group will take power in reality. I myself am opposed to the CC, but many of those that belong to it are actually opposed to authoritarianism and are pro-socialist democracy in reality.
Exactly.

I can see the imaginary purges going on in some clown's head right now.

:lol:

[Patchd]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 09:08 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 09:08 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 08:49 PM
Well, the CC is an authoritarian group within a website, this however does not mean that an authoritarian group will take power in reality. I myself am opposed to the CC, but many of those that belong to it are actually opposed to authoritarianism and are pro-socialist democracy in reality.
Exactly.

I can see the imaginary purges going on in some clown's head right now.

:lol: [/b]
:rolleyes:

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Palachinov
but many of those that belong to it are actually opposed to authoritarianism and are pro-socialist democracy in reality.
Which makes it even more ironic. They may preach against authority, but in reality if they could become the supreme dictator - they would.

[CrazyModerate]

The CC is very immature. If they can't tolerate the slightest of disagreement, then they obviously won't be able to attract any majority of people.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:17 PM
So you're fucking off to RA.

I'd say good riddance, but that would imply I gave some kind of shit.
hmm, seems like you do give a shit because you still said it.

As to my comments on the general ideas of those at RevLeft and Rebelforu ms, I can only speak from experience. Many are good people, no doubt, but the obsessiveness over anti-charity and anti-religion sickens me, as well as the suffocating activity of the CC.

I don't know if I'll post here or at rebel much more. truth be told, I am completely surprised that the thread wasn't deleted; though I assume that the point was to defend the pitiful image of the CC.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Dean
hmm, seems like you do give a shit because you still said it.
Jazzratt is the guy who insults others by refering to sodomy and female organs. He's living proof of CC hypocrisy. He's also a all around flamer who rarely adds anything intelligent to any debate.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Oct 3 2006, 09:56 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Oct 3 2006, 09:56 PM)
Dean
hmm, seems like you do give a shit because you still said it.
Jazzratt is the guy who insults others by refering to sodomy and female organs. He's living proof of CC hypocrisy. [/b]
Why thank you, I'm living proof of your big scary bogeyman :lol: I also don't support your restriction, so I guess that's part of CC hypocrsiy too - being that I'm its embodyment.


He's also a all around flamer who rarely adds anything intelligent to any debate. I dispute that, but then I would. I think the problem you have is that you're very much 'style over substance', as if a point somone made loses substance if they call somone a prick, wanker or whatever.

Still, glad to know somebody cares about me :wub:

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
Why thank you, I'm living proof of your big scary bogeyman laugh.gif I also don't support your restriction, so I guess that's part of CC hypocrsiy too - being that I'm its embodyment.
I'd hope you wouldn't support it. If you did then, you would support your very own restriction. Nevertheless, it still shows that those who are in the "in crowd" are treated vastly different.

I dispute that, but then I would. I think the problem you have is that you're very much 'style over substance', as if a point somone made loses substance if they call somone a prick, wanker or whatever.

Still, glad to know somebody cares about me
I was referring more to your one-liners.

[Janus]

When will people figure out that there is already a thread for discussions about restrictions?

Here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=22496)

Seriously, stop with all the attention seeking already.