restricted lefties tread! restricted but still lefty, post here!

[danyboy27]

hey! hello everyone! i am fully aware that there is a certain number of lefty that have been restricted in the past for various reasons (socialist, libertarian, social democrat etc.) and i was curious to know who are you.

Personally what i consider a leftist is something verry broad, large definition.
to me a leftist is not necessarly someone who preach about communist, it could be someone who are in favor of making the system more equal, who advocate progressist mean of making the society better. a leftist is not forced to support a particular ideology, a party or a governement.

so, who are you, restricted leftist of revleft?

[Bud Struggle]

Welcome to OI!

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:wDxqLHmSrfJ_cM:http://www.coffinfang.blogger.com.br/dracula.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Democratic-Left

[RedAnarchist]

In your thread, destroying your restricted hegemony!:cool:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Centre-left, social democrat, democratic left etc.

[jasmine]

This site has a checklist that determines who is a revolutionary and who is not. There are a number of big problems with this.

Firstly, being a revolutionary begins in the heart and only later arrives in the head. That means someone may genuinely be a defender and protector and advocate of the oppressed but be confused about what to do. Someone can be a genuine revolutionary without checking all the boxes.

Secondly, there is an assumption that we already understand human history and indeed human future. The 20th century demonstrated that human social development is far more complex than that anticipated by any 19th century writer/theoretician/politician/philosopher. The boxes may not be correct.

Thirdly, it's possible to discern the checklist and check all the boxes without actually adhering to the ideology. Some people here, believe me, have done that for varying reasons.

Fourthly, there is no correct revolutionary checklist. The Bolsheviks, as a mass party, were quite differentiated and included even anti-semites. I'm not advocating the participation of anti-semites here, even my most extereme opponents will have to acknowledge my opposition to racism, but I am pointing out that the revolution, even as it is being implemented, does not require unanimity.

[danyboy27]

This site has a checklist that determines who is a revolutionary and who is not. There are a number of big problems with this.

Firstly, being a revolutionary begins in the heart and only later arrives in the head. That means someone may genuinely be a defender and protector and advocate of the oppressed but be confused about what to do. Someone can be a genuine revolutionary without checking all the boxes.

Secondly, there is an assumption that we already understand human history and indeed human future. The 20th century demonstrated that human social development is far more complex than that anticipated by any 19th century writer/theoretician/politician/philosopher. The boxes may not be correct.

Thirdly, it's possible to discern the checklist and check all the boxes without actually adhering to the ideology. Some people here, believe me, have done that for varying reasons.

Fourthly, there is no correct revolutionary checklist. The Bolsheviks, as a mass party, were quite differentiated and included even anti-semites. I'm not advocating the participation of anti-semites here, even my most extereme opponents will have to acknowledge my opposition to racism, but I am pointing out that the revolution, even as it is being implemented, does not require unanimity.

i agree with you on that. why have you been restricted?
how come osmeone like you bhave been restricted?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

i agree with you on that. why have you been restricted?
how come osmeone like you bhave been restricted?
Someone like her? She's actually one of the more trollish OIers, back from a time when OI in general was a less civil place. I imagine she'd have been banned were it not for the rarity of her little visits.

[Bud Struggle]

Someone like her? She's actually one of the more trollish OIers, back from a time when OI in general was a less civil place. I imagine she'd have been banned were it not for the rarity of her little visits.

I think she's kinda cute. :)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think she's kinda cute. :)
That's because she's the one girl in the all-boys club that is OI.

[Killfacer]

thats because women arent funny. And only people with a sense of humour stay on revleft when restricted.

[Bud Struggle]

thats because women arent funny. And only people with a sense of humour stay on revleft when restricted.

Quite an astute observation there, Killfacer.

[RGacky3]

I consider myself an Anarchist and a Syndicalist, I'm restricted because I'm against abortion.

[GPDP]

Maybe I haven't spent enough time here, but I do think the criteria for the restriction of fellow leftists tends to be somewhat harsh.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm a card carrying member of the Communist Party (USA) and I've personally instituted Soviet style reforms in an American factory to share profits and decision making among the workers.

I'm a Communist as much as Engles was. Maybe more so--I don't think he ever did squat for his workers.:)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Gla illustrated our point. He was banned immediately on the Sean Hannity forum: http://www.revleft.com/vb/banned-sean-hannity-t86783/index.html

RevLeft is very caring. :D

[danyboy27]

I'm a card carrying member of the Communist Party (USA) and I've personally instituted Soviet style reforms in an American factory to share profits and decision making among the workers.

I'm a Communist as much as Engles was. Maybe more so--I don't think he ever did squat for his workers.:)


nice

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Tom, if you read up on how "socialism" and "communism" came to be recognized as the same, you might find some interesting and relevant history.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

When I get fed up with all the condescending obnoxious shit spewed by some of the non-restricted commies here, I just take a trip to the real world, where they are the OIers and they are the one nobody listens to. :cool:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, nobody is listening to yellow-reformist/social-fascists like you anymore, turning to the BNP, secessionist leftists, and "direct action." :)

BTW, "democratic Left" is a misnomer for the PARLIAMENTARY "Left." That you restrict political democracy to its parliamentary incarnation shows the bankruptcy of the "democratic Left" (even Chavez, for all his "social-democratic" zig-zagging, allowed the blossoming of participatory-democratic communal councils). :)

[danyboy27]

^^^ Um, nobody is listening to yellow-reformist/social-fascists like you anymore, turning to the BNP, secessionist leftists, and "direct action." :)

BTW, "democratic Left" is a misnomer for the PARLIAMENTARY "Left." That you restrict political democracy to its parliamentary incarnation shows the bankruptcy of the "democratic Left" (even Chavez, for all his "social-democratic" zig-zagging, allowed the blossoming of participatory-democratic communal councils). :)

wow, you actually say there is fascist on the forum, i wonder why you havnt banned them.

or maybe, some folks tend to use the term fascist when it suit them, against people who are not like them.
kinda remember me a certain practice used by a slav dictator 50 year ago to jail political opponent by labeling them counterevolutionary.

[Bud Struggle]

When I get fed up with all the condescending obnoxious shit spewed by some of the non-restricted commies here, I just take a trip to the real world, where they are the OIers and they are the one nobody listens to. :cool:

It is indeed a big wonderful world out there beyong the gray and black of
RevLeft. :)

[jasmine]

One word. TROLLING!


I think you and ECU are suffering from bad cases of selective memory.

Would either of you like to comment on what I said in this thread? Civilly? Without insults? With reasoned argument?

[Bud Struggle]

I think you and ECU are suffering from bad cases of selective memory.

Would either of you like to comment on what I said in this thread? Civilly? Without insults? With reasoned argument?

Cute AND fiesty! :wub: :lol:

[jasmine]

Cute AND fiesty!


Why, thank you kindly TomK! You may accompany me for the next dance.

[Bud Struggle]

Why, thank you kindly TomK! You may accompany me for the next dance.

That would be at the annual RevLeft Ball at Disneyworld!

They close down the park for us and we always end up storming Cinderella's Castle with shouts of Vive le Revolution!

We take the castle over and the Cinderella's evil stepmother (Rosa Litchenstein) turns into (Disney Magic) a beautiful young bare breasted babe (it's promised in all the Revolutionary advertisments and besides nooooobody gunna want to see Rosa barebeasted!) that leads us to Proletarian victory.

We shoot off (fake) guns get party favors and a get couple of cupons for discounted stuff and then go home to the sound of the Internationale sung by Alvin, Theodore and Simon. :lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

I understand that some of you may feel that the CC's restrictions are harsh, but they have rational justification.

In this thread alone there have already been sexist comments, trolling, demeaning posts, and repeated demonstrations of a lack of willingness to engage in intellectual discussion. If RevLeft is to maintain an atmosphere of dialogue, the CC must relegate those members who refuse to engage in such dialogue to a specific forum.

After all, women may not wish to post if there are men demeaning them. New users may not wish to ask questions if they will be ridiculed by trollers. And more seasoned users may get tired of one-line nonsense posted by children who use RevLeft as a social tool to get some sort of attention.

The CC makes decisions based on the coherency of the board. That is all. If you feel it is harsh or unfair you are free to raise your objections, but you must do so in a manner that is coherent, rational, and justified. I'm sorry if this is difficult for some of you.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

After all, women may not wish to post if there are men demeaning them. I'm sure Jasmine will agree with that!

Brave girl.

[RedAnarchist]

wow, you actually say there is fascist on the forum, i wonder why you havnt banned them.

or maybe, some folks tend to use the term fascist when it suit them, against people who are not like them.
kinda remember me a certain practice used by a slav dictator 50 year ago to jail political opponent by labeling them counterevolutionary.

Slav? Not only was Stalin Georgian and therefore not a "Slav", Slavic refers to a linguistic group.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

^^^ Um, nobody is listening to yellow-reformist/social-fascists like you anymore, turning to the BNP, secessionist leftists, and "direct action." :)

BTW, "democratic Left" is a misnomer for the PARLIAMENTARY "Left." That you restrict political democracy to its parliamentary incarnation shows the bankruptcy of the "democratic Left" (even Chavez, for all his "social-democratic" zig-zagging, allowed the blossoming of participatory-democratic communal councils). :)
That must be why you're winning all those elections.

[Bud Struggle]

That must be why you're winning all those elections.

Jake is bitter. :(

[Dros]

I'm a card carrying member of the Communist Party (USA) and I've personally instituted Soviet style reforms in an American factory to share profits and decision making among the workers.

I'm a Communist as much as Engles was. Maybe more so--I don't think he ever did squat for his workers.:)

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol:

You are my HERO!!!!!

[Dros]

That must be why you're winning all those elections.

You believe in bourgeois elections! How quaint...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It is indeed a big wonderful world out there beyong the gray and black of
RevLeft. :)
I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Leon Trotsky.


I think you and ECU are suffering from bad cases of selective memory.

Would either of you like to comment on what I said in this thread? Civilly? Without insults? With reasoned argument?
I'll bite, but not enthusiastically as it's not that big an issue for me. Why don't we each just agree not to pretend that the other person never addresses the substantive issue in a topic? You and I have had some interesting discussions over on RA (when I went under the name RedStar1916). But you have demonstrated yourself to be quite hostile in the past.



Firstly, being a revolutionary begins in the heart and only later arrives in the head. That means someone may genuinely be a defender and protector and advocate of the oppressed but be confused about what to do. Someone can be a genuine revolutionary without checking all the boxes.
But RevLeft is more of a discussion board than a debate board (except for OI). This is a board where leftists of different strands can come to discuss far-left issues like revolution. Its appeal is in the fact that discussion here is based on premises which are more advanced than on other discussion boards. It is therefore necessary to remove people who may dispute these premises from the discussion, to prevent the entire board from turning into one giant OI (which would be quite boring). Sure, you could argue that the board should be more about appealing to potential leftists instead of facilitating discussion amongst leftists, but that would be a big change in outlook and to be honest I'm not sure it'd work.



Secondly, there is an assumption that we already understand human history and indeed human future. The 20th century demonstrated that human social development is far more complex than that anticipated by any 19th century writer/theoretician/politician/philosopher. The boxes may not be correct.
Can you give examples?


Thirdly, it's possible to discern the checklist and check all the boxes without actually adhering to the ideology. Some people here, believe me, have done that for varying reasons.
That assumes that there is a set ideology, such as Maoism, Trotskyism etc. to which one must adhere in order to be able to post on the board. There is not. The ideology of the board is revolutionary leftism; as long as you believe in revolution and in leftism you meet the criteria. You can't tick those boxes without adhering to that ideology.



Fourthly, there is no correct revolutionary checklist. The Bolsheviks, as a mass party, were quite differentiated and included even anti-semites. I'm not advocating the participation of anti-semites here, even my most extereme opponents will have to acknowledge my opposition to racism, but I am pointing out that the revolution, even as it is being implemented, does not require unanimity.
Same answer as above really.

[Bud Struggle]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol:

You are my HERO!!!!!

Thank you my friend! I would appreciate your support for my election as the first Restricted member of the Commie Club! I certanly won't out vote you guys and you have to admit a breath of fresh air in the Politboro wouldn't hurt you one bit.

I want in.

Comrade Tom

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That must be why you're winning all those elections.
As I keep telling you: Sure, it's true we're not winning any elections. But then every time social democrats do win an election, they throw away their victory and don't implement any policies that are significantly different from those of the right-wing. So what's the point of winning elections if you're not going to do anything with those victories anyway?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Holy crap RedStar1916 why are you stuck in here? I used to be in the OI i went by the name Patton.
I know, I voted to let you out :lol:

Anywho, I was restricted at my own request because I no longer consider myself a revolutionary socialist. See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/okay-im-reformist-t84898/index.html

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm sure Jasmine will agree with that!

Brave girl.

These are the types of sexist comments I was talking about.

- August

[Jazzratt]

We take the castle over and the Cinderella's evil stepmother (Rosa Litchenstein) turns into (Disney Magic) a beautiful young bare breasted babe (it's promised in all the Revolutionary advertisments and besides nooooobody gunna want to see Rosa barebeasted!) that leads us to Proletarian victory.

Okay, a bit of good humoured joking about is all well and good but this is going too far. While this may be acceptable kind of fodder for the gentlemen's club here it is considered for what it really is - male-chauvinist bullshit. You can be a good member tom, but as people have pointed out a lot of your comments have been sexist and this one, I feel, is the absolute worst.

Please refrain from this kind of commentary in future.

[Slovo]

As I keep telling you: Sure, it's true we're not winning any elections. But then every time social democrats do win an election, they throw away their victory and don't implement any policies that are significantly different from those of the right-wing. So what's the point of winning elections if you're not going to do anything with those victories anyway? Well, don't simply defend yourself with that; social-democrats win their elections simply because they're more moderate, the standard of which is changing all the time. What is considered 'left wing' nowadays is far more 'to the left' than it was 100 years ago, for instance. Which party is winning elections says more about current social norms than it does about the validity of certain ideas. :)

[RGacky3]

How is what he said sexist? Switch the comments around make it a woman talking about a man, is it still sexist? Whats sexist about it? (i.e. how is he saying that women are inferoir, I think what he's saying is that he likes bare breasted babes and he thinks Rosa Litchenstein is not attractive.)


Well, don't simply defend yourself with that; social-democrats win their elections simply because they're more moderate, the standard of which is changing all the time.

Not so much that their Moderate, its more because the Capitalist class is'nt scared of them, they consider them safe.

[gla22]

I consider myself an Anarchist and a Syndicalist, I'm restricted because I'm against abortion.

That is ridiculous. i am not anti-abortion, but I can see how someone could be if the viewed it as murder. You should be allowed back in.

[Decolonize The Left]

That is ridiculous. i am not anti-abortion, but I can see how someone could be if the viewed it as murder. You should be allowed back in.

Actually he was restricted for several sexist comments as well. So add sexist comments onto a reactionary stance on a woman's personal autonomy, and generally stupid comments like the following one and you have yourself a restriction.


How is what he said sexist? Switch the comments around make it a woman talking about a man, is it still sexist? Whats sexist about it? (i.e. how is he saying that women are inferoir, I think what he's saying is that he likes bare breasted babes and he thinks Rosa Litchenstein is not attractive.)

Well it seems as though you have trouble reading. Tom's comments were sexist because he continuously belittled and patronized women. It's sexist because women are systematically oppressed, and hence derogatory comments made towards them become sexist as they are placed within a context of inequality.

- August

[JimmyJazz]

That would be at the annual RevLeft Ball at Disneyworld!

They close down the park for us and we always end up storming Cinderella's Castle with shouts of Vive le Revolution!

We take the castle over and the Cinderella's evil stepmother (Rosa Litchenstein) turns into (Disney Magic) a beautiful young bare breasted babe (it's promised in all the Revolutionary advertisments and besides nooooobody gunna want to see Rosa barebeasted!) that leads us to Proletarian victory.

We shoot off (fake) guns get party favors and a get couple of cupons for discounted stuff and then go home to the sound of the Internationale sung by Alvin, Theodore and Simon. :lol:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc101/vtm20002000/no.gif

You will be restricted to Toontown.

[Jazzratt]

How is what he said sexist? Switch the comments around make it a woman talking about a man, is it still sexist? Whats sexist about it? (i.e. how is he saying that women are inferoir, I think what he's saying is that he likes bare breasted babes and he thinks Rosa Litchenstein is not attractive.)

Do you know what sexism is?

[RGacky3]

Actually he was restricted for several sexist comments as well. So add sexist comments onto a reactionary stance on a woman's personal autonomy, and generally stupid comments like the following one and you have yourself a restriction.

When I was restricted, it was solely for the anti-abortion thing.


and hence derogatory comments made towards them become sexist as they are placed within a context of inequality.


I personally don't agree with that perse, he did'nt say something like, 'women belong in the kitchen' or 'women are less intelient than men' or 'women should'nt be allowed to do stuff that men are', he simply expressed his sex drive, and as far as I'm concerned theres nothing sexist about that. How did he belittle Women, at most he belittled a woman by saying no one wants too see her bare breased.

The context of the matter is TomK likes bare breasted women, thats it.


Do you know what sexism is?

I believe its descrimination based on sex, and I don't see how expressing a sex drive is descrimination.


That is ridiculous. i am not anti-abortion, but I can see how someone could be if the viewed it as murder. You should be allowed back in.

I agree, but I doubt its gonna happen.

[Jazzratt]

I believe its descrimination based on sex, and I don't see how expressing a sex drive is descrimination.

You don't see how talking about women as sex objects is sexism? Indeed you see absolutely no reinforcement of the patriarchal power structure? And how could anyone miss the textbook example of male gaze? I know that you only want freedom for people who don't have wombs but you could at least recognise sexism on a basic level.

[pusher robot]

You don't see how talking about women as sex objects is sexism? Indeed you see absolutely no reinforcement of the patriarchal power structure? And how could anyone miss the textbook example of male gaze? I know that you only want freedom for people who don't have wombs but you could at least recognise sexism on a basic level.

Oh come on. You're saying it's sexist for men to be sexually attracted to women.

[Jazzratt]

Oh come on. You're saying it's sexist for men to be sexually attracted to women.

No I'm not. I'm saying male-chauvinist comments about bare-breasted women and degrading personal attacks on female members of this board are sexist. I'm very sorry for the women you meet if you believe the only way to express your heterosexuality is to imply that women are only worthwhile if they change from ugly philosophers [Rosa, apparently] into bare-breasted maidens [TomK's ideal communist woman, apparently].

[Dros]

When I was restricted, it was solely for the anti-abortion thing.

Exactly!

[Decolonize The Left]

When I was restricted, it was solely for the anti-abortion thing.

The "anti-abortion thing" is also called having a reactionary stance on women's autonomy.


I personally don't agree with that perse, he did'nt say something like, 'women belong in the kitchen' or 'women are less intelient than men' or 'women should'nt be allowed to do stuff that men are', he simply expressed his sex drive, and as far as I'm concerned theres nothing sexist about that. How did he belittle Women, at most he belittled a woman by saying no one wants too see her bare breased.

I well understand that you don't agree with it, but I also know that you don't understand it - so I will help you. You claim that TomK "simply expressed his sex drive." In itself, that phrase is highly suspect. But since you don't know what you're talking about, let's go find TomK's 'expression of his sex drive,' shall we? Here we go:

I think she's kinda cute. :)

Cute AND fiesty! :wub: :lol:

We take the castle over and the Cinderella's evil stepmother (Rosa Litchenstein) turns into (Disney Magic) a beautiful young bare breasted babe (it's promised in all the Revolutionary advertisments and besides nooooobody gunna want to see Rosa barebeasted!) that leads us to Proletarian victory.

I'm sure Jasmine will agree with that!

Brave girl.

Just "expressing his sex drive"? On an internet forum dedicated to revolutionary theory? Regarding female members whom he has never seen, let alone met? Using highly patronizing and demeaning language? I think not. Let is stand for what it is - sexist trash.

And you know where sexist trash lands you? OI. Welcome home.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Okay, a bit of good humoured joking about is all well and good but this is going too far. While this may be acceptable kind of fodder for the gentlemen's club here it is considered for what it really is - male-chauvinist bullshit. You can be a good member tom, but as people have pointed out a lot of your comments have been sexist and this one, I feel, is the absolute worst.

Please refrain from this kind of commentary in future.

I will refrain. I was joking around a bit and got carried away.

My apologies to everyone.

Tom

[jasmine]

I'll bite, but not enthusiastically as it's not that big an issue for me. Why don't we each just agree not to pretend that the other person never addresses the substantive issue in a topic? You and I have had some interesting discussions over on RA (when I went under the name RedStar1916). But you have demonstrated yourself to be quite hostile in the past.



You reacted with extreme hostility to a few throw-away comments. During my last period here I was dealing with the extreme abuse of that foul, racist individual Vinny (who was banned) and Jazzratt who defended Vinny all the way with equally foul abuse (****, arsewipe etc.) and was subsequentially promoted - go figure.

I agree I am not the most diplomatic person on the planet but I am not wilfully abusive.

I find it strange that TomK is currently being criticized for a few questionable comments whilst when Jazzratt was regularly, daily, calling me a **** because he wanted to defend a racist scumbag nobody objected (officially ) Unofficially a couple of people intervened, an Irish guy, can't remember his name, and a maoist.

This and other, earlier, similar experiences, of which you are aware, are the source of my "hostility" here.

However, I respect your integrity and the way you have stepped back to take a look.

[Hawk_]

Libertarian.

[jasmine]

Okay, a bit of good humoured joking about is all well and good but this is going too far. While this may be acceptable kind of fodder for the gentlemen's club here it is considered for what it really is - male-chauvinist bullshit. You can be a good member tom, but as people have pointed out a lot of your comments have been sexist and this one, I feel, is the absolute worst.

Please refrain from this kind of commentary in future.

Very good Jazzratt, and all those times you called me a **** ...

[RGacky3]

Just "expressing his sex drive"? On an internet forum dedicated to revolutionary theory? Regarding female members whom he has never seen, let alone met?

You have a point there. Although that does'nt apply to his castle fantasy.

If I'm trying to get a woman to bed, am I expected to say first "With all due respect." or "But thats not all I look at women as" or "Not as an object, but as a person." I freaking hope not.


The "anti-abortion thing" is also called having a reactionary stance on women's autonomy.

Ok, but lets have the record clear, THAT was the reason :P.


I'm very sorry for the women you meet if you believe the only way to express your heterosexuality is to imply that women are only worthwhile if they change from ugly philosophers [Rosa, apparently] into bare-breasted maidens [TomK's ideal communist woman, apparently].

Maybe he's sallow and thats all he wants in a woman, maybe thats what they are worthwhile to him, theres nothign wrong or sexist about that, its shallow, but not sexist.

Are women who sleep around with men who are good looking, just because they are good looking sexist? I don't think so, you could argue they are shallow, but so what, theres a difference. Those women are looking at the men they sleep with as sex objects, and there is nothing wrong with that.


And how could anyone miss the textbook example of male gaze? I know that you only want freedom for people who don't have wombs but you could at least recognise sexism on a basic level.

What about the female gaze? Men get that as well, just go to the beach. I believe in freedom for all people, but freedom does'nt mean that people arn't allowed to look at you and want to bang you, and it goes both ways. Sex drive is'nt sexist, sex drive without respect or love is'nt sexism, its only sexist when its only acceptable one way, or when one is discriminated because of their sex.

[Bud Struggle]

An FYI. I don't want to make an excuse for my previous post, I just want to explain the context--when I was refering to a "bare breasted woman" the context wasn't sexual. I was referencing this picture specificly:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/OWP/C9114~Liberty-Leading-People-Posters.jpg

I guess you can take it as a "sexy" picture, but for the most it's a universal symbol of Revolution. Again, I don't mean to make an excuse- I apoligize for my mistake.

But, joke about Rosa was indeed uncalled for.

[Killfacer]

blammo. Tom sinks any attack with one blow. Bravo. Apologies in order me thinks.

[Jazzratt]

Very good Jazzratt, and all those times you called me a **** ...

You were being a prick. The word **** is now quasi-officially banned on revleft, so in deference to the rules I don't use it any more (even if someone, like you, richly deserves it.) - but that's because of the rules not because I agree with faux-feminists who believe the word is sexist.


What about the female gaze?

I know that you avoid feminists, or indeed women with any kind of strong opinion, like the fucking plague but are you really this much of a dumb gobshite?

[Decolonize The Left]

You were being a prick. The word **** is now quasi-officially banned on revleft, so in deference to the rules I don't use it any more (even if someone, like you, richly deserves it.) - but that's because of the rules not because I agree with faux-feminists who believe the word is sexist.

It's not that individuals "believe" the word is sexist, it has been argued quite well that it is. And furthermore, 'opposing arguments' have little justification and are often either incoherent, or purely prejudiced opinions. And no one's saying it's "banned," but folks are saying that people should pay attention to what they say because others might take offense. Not too much to ask is it?

So before you begin to call people "faux-feminists" it might do you well to consider the position you are putting forth.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Here'a an interesting article about the Communist ideological ally, the Christian Conservative former Attorney General of the US John Ashcroft. He also has "issues" with the metaphor of bare breasted women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm

No longer will US Attorney General John Ashcroft appear in public with a semi-nude statue towering above him.
The US Justice Department has spent $8,000 on curtains to hide the statue from the cameras.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Ashcroft_soj.jpg/200px-Ashcroft_soj.jpg

It seems women's breasts make strange bed fellows. :lol:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Here'a an interesting article about the Communist ideological ally, the Christian Conservative former Attorney General of the US John Ashcroft. He also has "issues" with the metaphor of bare breasted women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm

No longer will US Attorney General John Ashcroft appear in public with a semi-nude statue towering above him.
The US Justice Department has spent $8,000 on curtains to hide the statue from the cameras.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Ashcroft_soj.jpg/200px-Ashcroft_soj.jpg

It seems women's breasts make strange bed fellows. :lol:
To be honest I don't think many leftists have problems with actual women's breasts, more with people who feel the need to bring them up in completely unrelated conversations as well as harass female members of the board. Which, much more than being sexist, is just very weird and creepy.

[RGacky3]

I know that you avoid feminists, or indeed women with any kind of strong opinion, like the fucking plague but are you really this much of a dumb gobshite?

I know what the male gaze is, and I know the whole philosphy behind it, as in objectifying women, but the fact is the same thing happens with men, to a different degree, and in a different type of way sometimes, but it still happens. Either way, that whole gaze concept has nothing to do with law and concrete power structures, its just points of view.

[jasmine]

You were being a prick.

I'm sure most women, come to that most people, would find you far more offensive (in a rather pathetic way) than they would TomK.

When I opposed a racist, who you venemously supported, I was 'being a prick.'

It's all just a game isn't it?

[jasmine]

Just "expressing his sex drive"? On an internet forum dedicated to revolutionary theory? Regarding female members whom he has never seen, let alone met? Using highly patronizing and demeaning language? I think not. Let is stand for what it is - sexist trash.


Well, you are right, but I've suffered far worse than this here and nothing was done. There seem to be at least two distinct factions and the position on the question of women is at best incoherent.

For example Dean was restricted for his musings on the possible relationship between biology and maternal instincts whilst Jazzratt foamed at the mouth with sexist abuse and was rewarded.

[jasmine]

But RevLeft is more of a discussion board than a debate board (except for OI). This is a board where leftists of different strands can come to discuss far-left issues like revolution. Its appeal is in the fact that discussion here is based on premises which are more advanced than on other discussion boards. It is therefore necessary to remove people who may dispute these premises from the discussion, to prevent the entire board from turning into one giant OI (which would be quite boring). Sure, you could argue that the board should be more about appealing to potential leftists instead of facilitating discussion amongst leftists, but that would be a big change in outlook and to be honest I'm not sure it'd work.


I take your point but wouldn't it be better to to organise it via invitations and recommendations in that case? It seems to me that the current set up falls between two stools - the attempt to have a discussion forum for already convinced leftists and the desire to convince and educate new people.

To educate it seems to me you need to allow a greater margin for error and less certainty that you have all the answers.

The 20th century was very rich in providing events that followed no as yet discernable pattern. The Bolshevik Revolution did not act as the spark for the expected/feared western european revolution but in its stalinist degeneration became the model for many "third world" anti-imperialist, nationalist revolutions. The existence of the Soviet Union proved both a model for social organisation and an economic alternative to western capitalism. I don't think the implications of this are well understood. Some marxists (eg Hillel Tickten) talk of this period as "the transition to socialism" but most of these revolutions sustained a non-capitalist mode of production only for a few decades.

There is no real, existing model of socialist revolution that I am aware of that really deals with the "aberrations" of the 20th century. As such it's very difficult to define a socialist, communist, revolutionary, reformist in terms of what they are doing. In the 19th century things looked much clearer and simpler.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here'a an interesting article about the Communist ideological ally, the Christian Conservative former Attorney General of the US John Ashcroft. He also has "issues" with the metaphor of bare breasted women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm

No longer will US Attorney General John Ashcroft appear in public with a semi-nude statue towering above him.
The US Justice Department has spent $8,000 on curtains to hide the statue from the cameras.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Ashcroft_soj.jpg/200px-Ashcroft_soj.jpg

It seems women's breasts make strange bed fellows. :lol:

This is just prudishness. It seems that some members of the USJD are so insecure in their own sexuality that they feel threatened by brass/stone breasts. Maybe Atlas would get that bunch of old sods wet instead?

[RGacky3]

This is just prudishness. It seems that some members of the USJD are so insecure in their own sexuality that they feel threatened by brass/stone breasts. Maybe Atlas would get that bunch of old sods wet instead?

I believe it was Lenny Bruce (another very smart comedian, that unfortunately was'nt very funny) who said "If you have a problem with a part of the human body, blame the maker." If you believe in Creation, then you believe that God made tits, puss, cock and ass as well, and he made it for us.


There is no real, existing model of socialist revolution that I am aware of that really deals with the "aberrations" of the 20th century.

Thats begining to change, the socialist movements in Latin America is extreamly diverse, and many of them have nothing to do with the old Bolshevik way of doing things. The Zapatistas, the Bolivian water wars, the leftist elections, the Argeninian worker takeovers, the revolts in Oaxaca and Atenco in Mexico, all of these and more have moved beyond Bolshevism, niether being for or against it, just being beyond it, which is a very good thing.

[Jazzratt]

I'm sure most women, come to that most people, would find you far more offensive (in a rather pathetic way) than they would TomK.

That's entirely their problem.


When I opposed a racist, who you venemously supported, I was 'being a prick.'

When you accuse non-racists of being racist then, yes, you're being an utter prick.


It's all just a game isn't it?

Why don't you fuck off?


For example Dean was restricted for his musings on the possible relationship between biology and maternal instincts whilst Jazzratt foamed at the mouth with sexist abuse and was rewarded.

Either come up with some concrete evidence or jog on.

[Dean]

That would be at the annual RevLeft Ball at Disneyworld!

No, you can't have her. Damn capitalists, you take everything good that we have! :(

[Dean]

I guess you can take it as a "sexy" picture, but for the most it's a universal symbol of Revolution. Again, I don't mean to make an excuse- I apoligize for my mistake.

But, joke about Rosa was indeed uncalled for.

And a wonderful picture it is.

As for the comment, I don't think it was sexist - though I do think it was insensitive. There are social norms that make women uncomfortable when they are spoken of sexually (also true for men, but not as obvious). That said, habitually referring to women as "****s" is far harsher and less acceptable in my opinion, whether it is meant to reinforce a sexist ideal or not.

Jazzratt, you are very level headed except when it comes to a few things - specifically, in your abuse of OIers. I remember when I first came here, my demeanor was not very different (indeed I was probably far more amiable, at the time I was more interested in the psychological theory of love in communism). But you treated me very harshly, as you did Jasmine. I can honestly say that you have changed for the better now (not just because I'm out of OI, there is a marked change in how you treat OIers). I do wonder, however, why this changed is not accompanied by a rejection of your past standards.

Also, I think we know that your discontinuation of the term C**t is not primarily about the "de facto" ban - at least, that's not what you said in the CC thread. I wont repeat it for sake of anonymity, however.

Jazzratt and AugustWest, It's important to distinguish when members are being sexist and when they are being insensitive. Most usage of C**t here is not apparently sexist, and I don't think TomK was being sexist, either. With TomK, some underlying analysis might find his statements sexist, but I don't think he means to offend anyone, and it seems obvious to me that a somewhat insensitive expression of sexuality is far more acceptable than calling women "C**ts."

[Jazzratt]

There are social norms that make women uncomfortable when they are spoken of sexually (also true for men, but not as obvious). That said, habitually referring to women as "****s" is far harsher and less acceptable in my opinion, whether it is meant to reinforce a sexist ideal or not.

No one (as far as I'm aware) refers to someone as a **** because they're a woman, it is not a sexist term - however I really do not want to get into this debate for the 5th or 6th time, it's draining and boring.


Also, I think we know that your discontinuation of the term C**t is not primarily about the "de facto" ban - at least, that's not what you said in the CC thread. I wont repeat it for sake of anonymity, however.

Right, thanks but I'm not going to be all that secretive with my reasoning - a number of our members come from various cultures and a vast bulk of them come from a particular culture (america) which treats the word as sexist, in the interest of not offending those members and, mainly, of a quiet life I have omitted the word **** from my future posts.

[RGacky3]

That's entirely their problem.

Hahah, I love that, is it also entirely their problem if someone decides to grab their ass and say "make me a sandwitch toots."


Jazzratt and AugustWest, It's important to distinguish when members are being sexist and when they are being insensitive.

Excactly, theres a big difference, being insensitive is negative and should'nt be done, but you can't make the jump to sexism or racism or any of that stuff, because those are serious accusations.


No one (as far as I'm aware) refers to someone as a **** because they're a woman, it is not a sexist term - however I really do not want to get into this debate for the 5th or 6th time, it's draining and boring.

Its not sexist at all, its an insult, plain an simple. Now saying Women are ****s in general, that would probably be sexist.

[Bud Struggle]

and it seems obvious to me that a somewhat insensitive expression of sexuality is far more acceptable than calling women "C**ts."

Thank you Dean--you are a gentleman.

But, this place is rife with "insensitivity." I'm not on anyone's case--because I don't care personally, but there's one guy that has the word "fatso" in his sig line, other's with all sort so impolite reference to people's chosen God.

They are killing priests off for no apparent reason in the forum next door. They are accusing Capitalists (and remember I'm a Capitalist) of creating uber cyborg soldiers to supress honest working people. Do you think talk like that doesn't hurt my feelings?

August accused me of being sexist when I said that Jasmine was a (I forget exactly) a "great girl." Am I being sexist (in a homosexual way of course,) whe I called Dean a "gentleman?"

I know, as it's often pointed out RevLeft isn't modeled after Post Revolutionary Communist world (we all know it is modeled after the Post Revolutionary Degenerate Workers State.;) :lol:) But need we be so selective in our sensivitivities? :)

[Bud Struggle]

The OI used to be full of right wing trolls. You think that may have been the problem. Now all the trolls are gone.

Nah, we're just getting better at it. :lol::lol::lol:

[jasmine]

The internet seems to have spawned a new type of leftist - one who spends his/her time on the net, reading bits of books here and there but doing no practical activity. There's really no substitute for real experience. If you've never got your hands dirty you have nothing to say worth listening to. Yes Jazzratt, I'm talking to you.

Please go ahead and hurl your abuse. A more honest person might listen.

[danyboy27]

The internet seems to have spawned a new type of leftist - one who spends his/her time on the net, reading bits of books here and there but doing no practical activity. There's really no substitute for real experience. If you've never got your hands dirty you have nothing to say worth listening to. Yes Jazzratt, I'm talking to you.

Please go ahead and hurl your abuse. A more honest person might listen.

i dont want to contradict you, but this kind of behavior has spread to all ideologies; left, right, etc.

internet is great, but the society of today create a apathy movement. we are close to each other than ever, but we simply doing nothing, only a minority is doing actively something. I suffer myself of apathy, and actively trying to fight it in order to do something rather than just reading thing over the internet.