Politically, what do you consider yourself as?

is islamaphobic a word? it was implied that all muslim women have to wear "veils" on this thread. which they don't. fundamentalist sects may enforce this, but i've met plenty of girls who believe in allah who couldn't give a rats arse, and love to let me touch and look at their hair. it's like saying all x-tians think jeebus was the son of god. no... they actually all don't.

and i don't give a fuck who i offend. i got into punk way before the whole PC fad, and i know when i'm being racist, sexist, homophobic etc blah blah baa baa ad nauseum and i will do so when i choose. i recognise my flaws, and hypocrisy, and i stand by them as solidly as i do my beliefs. unlike this stance of "a punk band/anarchist philosopher wrote it: therefore: it's gospel", which is just a new order of fundamentalism. now, go and work out way i banned our gracious friend. and shut the fuck up if you think i embarass myself. i'll do that when i want to too, and it won't be by your standards bucko.

i do realise your comment might not have been directed at me. have a laugh on my behalf if so.

 

This is why anarchism and religion dont mix

 

It was directed at the lot of you.

Ang on, you banned her? Some anarchist site's this been. Fuck the lot of you, I'm off an all.

If this site is ever run by a collection of people who don't bicker like children and ban those that disagree with them, send me a mail and I'll come back. Anarchists my arse.

 

i don't recall ever calling myself an anarchist.

i would have been quite happy for our muslim friend to remain part of the site, i found her take on things interesting, and i think it important that these kind of varied views on what it is to be anarchist or whatever to be allowed to be voiced.

i disagree with her sure, (and her detractors too for what it's worth) but i didn't weigh in on the debate as much as i would have, as my own take on politics conflicts with the generally fundamentalist/orthodox/mainstream/whatever "anarcho" approach. i banned her personally, without regard for usual protocol, because i found her graphic description of what anal sex is to be highly insensitive and insulting. i like me my buttsecks, from boys or from girls, and it's never been literally as "dirty" as that post implied it to be.

so consider it a personal choice on my behalf. suggest my "privileges" be revoked if you feel the need. while i'll let "the children" bicker, i will not tolerate homophobia. enough said.

so, anyway, this isn't the focus of the thread. i would say this issue "highjacked" it, and i mean that in a typical netspeak way, not as some cultural slur. moving on... i hope.

 

a media activist.

 

I'm not guna tell you ow or ow not to run your website, though I did ave the impression before that this was a collective effort and I assumed discplinary decisions would come down to the community as a whole.

But banning people over personal remarks made during heated debates (where personal slights were made by and against both sides) would be extreme on any forum, let alone one trying to espouse anarchist values. It undermines them. Why practise censorship? I know you found the homophobic statements offensive but I found some of the intolerance of Islam and religion offensive, but I woudn't suggest anyone should be censored as a result.

My personal advice is that you need to address the way you deal with these things and open them to public debate and decision. A forum for opening cases against people and debating and voting on disciplinary actions, perhaps. Because a few more incidents like this could really undermine what you're tryin to do here. I personally don't feel I could continue in a forum that espoused anarchist values but was run in such a way.

 

To stray further from the discussion, after reading multiple posts by the bannee, I actually agree with the decision taken. I didn't find any of the remarks offensive. Crude? Yes. Offensive? No.
However, rE sIs Tanz seemed to have a tendency to debate with any member that went against her beliefs, without being able to back any of them up. When she seemed to be on the losing side of the argument she resorted to personal attacks, usually in larger font than typical.
To me however, I should also add, this case is now closed.

 

Green Anarchist.

 

Yea... rE sIs Tanz wasn't threatning to kill anyone and i think the banning was a little too much. I actually liked seeing the back and forth of his/her beliefs and how that person was shut down time and time again!

Just dont turn into an infoshop forum where you cant even fucking discuss certain peoples because they are so divided or "conspiracy theories". When you start denieing peoples right to be different with whatever anarcho-text you need, then YOU WILL DIE. Nah, jk. Yes this forum can be used as a tool and all, but i love to accept the diversity in opinions of people. And like i said before, seeing them having their beliefs torn apart!

 

yeah i have to agree that the banning was extreme. Personally I was enjoying laughs at her expense, and she wasn't making this site look bad, just her self and her values. As far as the homophobic comment and personal attacks, I would have issued a warning first before banning, but whatever. In spite of that I still enjoy this website, I enjoy the arguments, and debates. I am sure she won't be the first person who comes here looking to rile up the folks here, and the site deals with it in the future should be considered.

-the anxietist

 

It appears that the collective decision so far is that you were out of line. But I probably shouldnt say that since I'll probably get banned too.

 

I'm glad the idiot Islamist has been booted. She would've wasted too much of everyone's energy with her nonsense.

I'm all up for debate, but trying to debate with a religious fool is like trying to herd cats.

 

Ungovernable, i didnt see anything that Re Ziz Stanz or whatever posted about being a nazi and shit. Yea i was thinking you would write that, i mean i DONT tolerate that, because thats not diversity. And i just threw that infoshop thing in there because i was just on the site forums about 10 minutes before i posted that and i was flabbergasted. But the persons gone now, no need to linger on the subject.

 

You know, besides infighting, this type of reverse discrimination is the biggest problem in anarchism. You want freedom and the free exchange of ideas but only if it's within your "rules".

You say we can't discuss topics with homophobics or sexists? Why? Aren't they the people we SHOULD be talking with? Otherwise it's just a bunch of self righteous "anarchists" patting eachother on the back.

I agree that she was on the ignorant side, but it seems that you're much more interested in supressing religion than actually improving the quality of this board.

Incase you haven't realized there are plenty of spiritual anarchists (Tolstoy, Thoreau, Gandhi), and their opinion is just as valid as yours or mine.

Shit like this is the reason I lost faith in collective ideals a long time ago. As much as they say it's "a collective decision", there's always some power hungry cockwad there to push people around.

If you want the consensus, look at the replies on this thread. The majority thinks you were wrong. So does that mean we get a new mod? Of course not. Because this is anarchism, not freedom. The system set up here is no better than what we're pretending to rail against.

Ever see the show "Xavier: Renegade Angel"? You remind me of the "Squatters rights!!!" guy. It's apparent that your politics have come full circle.

I've said my peace. But I guess I better remember not to tell you I go to a Unitarian church and practice Zen buddhism, because then I wouldn't be anarchist enough for your anarchy.

 

I agree unless if its someone toting Nazism, or fascism, then that, to me, should always be suppressed.

 

Yeah, and they have plenty of forums to spout their shit on. I'd like to be able to come here and NOT see any nazi or racist propaganda. There's enough of it elsewhere... even if your not looking for it

-the anxietist