Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Money in anarchy?

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Tomaks, Jul 26, 2010.

  1. snookams

    snookamsExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    438

    1

    4

    Feb 7, 2010
     
    meanwhile, on planet earth.
     
  2. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    WHATEVER THE FUCK HAPPENED TO
    "Before you reply I simply request that:
    1) You outline your ideology, the basics of it and all.
    2) You reply in FULL, do not even exclude anything.
    3) That you actually read my post.
    4) That you try to refrain from using attacks instead of arguments."

    Did you suffer from severe brain lag? Fucking idiot. Skip part 4, I'm over that now.


    YOU ARE SKIPPING HUGE SECTIONS OF MY POST AND REPLYING TO A SENTENCE OR TWO. CALL THAT A DEBATE?

    If you want to benefit the population then you have to abolish money, otherwise there would be no benefit and we're better off with Capitalism.

    I called it a strawman because it is a sham argument and I explained why after it. Since you obviously did not even read correctly then I will have to reiterate. The kids who are attending schools are not facing any problems themselves, it is their parents who are, and again through the many reforms they're facing less problems. They can always join public schools which barely cost anything as compared to other countries, it is generally a small minority that cannot afford sending their kids to a public school. Do you not think that these people can work and then join college, university, or whatever? If you reply with a no then I'd beg to differ. People over here including some of my friends and my cousin work double shifts during summer to help pay their University tuition. They are able to do so, no problems there and yet many of these graduates turn to become manual workers of such lowly positions. Is the problem money? Not really. "Being a doc is harder", oh. Oh, really? Did you even read the rest of my post before replying with such a comment? I will not reply to this part unless you do request that I copy/paste my last post.

    Oh, so basically you either want every revolutionized country to be self-sufficient or want revolution in one country (a la Stalin?) then? You sir, you have the most Utopian and ill thought theory that I have ever seen. You are then planning to produce everything locally in order to encourage job openings? Who is it that will open such jobs? Will it be our lovely bourgeois or will it be your impeding state? Who will say that such jobs are needed and such are not? Of course this is also the beginning of a hierarchy. If whatever system you plan to put up to open up employment positions, and they are unable to for example supply a carpenter with a carpenter's shop for there are too many of said carpenters. What limits a cooperation of rich individuals to board up and start a carpenter's shop? Being illegal stops nothing. With this point being made, this formation of private industry would spread and we're back to square one. Wherever you look at it your planning is flawed. You will never be able to find enough jobs for more than 311,937,000 people in the United States alone without even counting for any immigrants and Revolutionaries that wish to join, with that number there without doubt will be a high margin of error given the conditions you imply. There are many holes in this section of the theory in particular which I will gladly point out and emphasis more if need be.


    On the contrary.

    No, that is false. You are barring any external needs and secondary items of luxury and necessity. Even people who are being paid a respectable paying wage cannot fully provide for one's self, look at anyone right now, they're facing financial problems and the ever there risk of being fired from their only source of income. People who make the least amount of money are not able to provide for themselves. For the latter, yes, you clearly have not been outside or in contact with another human being over the last few decades, it is those who barely have any that resort to buying items of luxury and prestige to become respectful individuals and get over their grief of becoming the lowliest of the low by making up to buy an iPhone, Blackberry, or the newest fab, do not even think of refuting this point before going out and taking a look, I live with such people. Even the lowliest of the low wants to someday be able to buy that PS3, or Plasma TV and since your proposed false theory is based on such things as money and "advancement" then obviously what I say is true.

    I love your claims.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0132e5e-226c ... ab49a.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... experience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... llege-ever
    http://www.marketwire.com/press-release ... 263012.htm

    Mind the sources. So what you are trying to say is that no, you cannot insure that the hundred thousands of graduates will find work but in a political voicing manner. How astonishing it is indeed if it were my lifelong dream to become a doctor, an engineer, or any of these inflated work positions then I will have to study over seven years to end up finding no job at all just because there are too many of "me"? Oh the opportunities and the chances there will be. Your theory is beginning to sound more of a reformist Capitalist system rather than what you describe it as, it has the same logic and sense of equality as those of the Capitalists and their "V for Voluntaryism" associations and their outrageous claims that "free" bonds between the workers and the owners will defeat any possible nuisances and inequality between the two, that the workers will gladly accept to be "voluntarily" oppressed.

    No, being able to disprove your point and even your THEORY as whole is embarrassing, proving my point is mildly so. What do nerds being uncool have anything to do with this discussion? A boom in common labor with a comfortable pay? Are you fucking kidding me? Who is to say that such a pay would be "comfortable", people have OTHER NEEDS THAN FOOD, it was Kropotkin who pointed that out soon after food has been supplied. Being unable to satisfy the most basic items of luxury would not and cannot be by a far fetch called COMFORTABLE. Who will certify that after an inflation that the wages will be altered accordingly? I hope it will not be a class (oh wait) of newly formed Economist bourgeois? Who is it to say that such jobs of necessity such as a farmer and a garbageman, with all their difficulties are to be paid less and not more? You cannot base such things on demand for demand is always fluctuating. With the many, many calculations, transfers, and loss people will be left out of work after the demand for miners decreases, then there will be the infamous strikes which you cannot understand it so seems. So I ask again are UNIONS, STRIKING, and such be LEGAL?

    "You think people will turn to desperation simply because they lack useless commodity's affordable only when you've been busting your ass working for years?"
    Are you fucking kidding me? Are you even sane? You clearly, for the hundredth time have not been outside or in contact with people or your neighbors. Do I even need to explain such a thing of common knowledge? I have seen workers with 4-5 kids who cannot even get their kids past a few grades without finding financial problems buying Blackberries, iPhones, LCD/Plasma TVs, the newest Kitchen apparatus for their wives, 2005+ cars and even Grand Cherokees where they base the pay upon monthly pay, etc. etc. You define such things as "useless" there goes your theory, you have not seen it in the field where millions of people go on shopping sprees to suit their needs of prestige and luxury before even calculating the bills from school, electricity, telephone, and gas. I've been there when I had to collect my pay when I opened the door and saw such items of novelty inside the house while the owner of the house came out saying that "I don't have money on me right now" or something on the lines of that, yet you can clearly see what his house contained and what his car was. Pathetic. This is coming from personal experience and not some inapplicable reformist theory.

    "you're so closed minded you can't even see that. Your brain must shutoff when confronted with logic or something."
    Logic? You say that when you have not even outlined or spoke of your inapplicable theory in full, which I am 100% sure that should you do it would be full of thousands of holes.
    Mafias, corruption and populace ass kissing are only possible in a Capitalist society? Oh my... And I thought you had a shred of intelligence, you keep making me doubt it. You are speaking of a government? Are you going to implement a government? Then you speak of a police force... Do you not think that a mafia, or a bond of men will form in order to take away what they need and form their own commune or the like? Are you that blind? If you will GLADLY AND FINALLY EXPLAIN IN FULL YOUR THEORY then I can reply in full without have to be repeating myself and watching you cut most of my post to reply in semi-parts. Comfortable standard of living IS RELATIVE, got that? R-E-L-A-T-I-V-E. Do you want me to explain? Sure then, a comfortable living is different from one worker and job to another, it is a "comfortable" standard of living for a miner/shop worker to be paid a measly wage, while it is uncomfortable for a doctor to be paid less than that shop employee or miner. On the other hand, a doctor would have a "comfortable standard of living" if he were to be paid more less than what he is currently paid, but it would soon become uncomfortable to be paid less. If you are to relate and equalize said jobs then you would have the equality of wages which you are totally against. So on what do you base your comfortable standard of living on, do tell me. I hope it is not based only on the supplement of food. Money is a tool but the emphasis is based on COMMUNITY and Education? Did I not talk about this and explain it in my previous post or are you that blind? How the hell can it be based on community in such a manner? It would be based on individual strive rather than communal strive. You would be facing the same problem as Collectivists an-oh wait. Will the workplaces be collectivized? How come I never thought of that. :lmao: Please answer that and I will continue.

    That is not "improving the education system" when you still retain GRADING. You are asking them to question anything and believe in nothing, what will then stop them from forming a gang of Fascists, Capitalists, Communists that will with a rise take over your Utopian system, no one expected the Nazis to do so in Germany, nor did anyone expect the Bolsheviks in Russia even though they were bred to believe in one system and the latter in only the Tsar. With that level of breeding ignorance and stupidity (yes) of "I can do whatever the fuck I want", then you've doomed generations to come with such mentality that they even refuse to adhere, hear, or read any books of any ideology even if you advise them to. I tried that myself with "ICDWTFIW" Anarchists by recommending books of Bakunin and even Chomsky, they called me authoritarian for doing so.

    You MUST assume the absolute worst of people if you are to even hint at theorizing. If you expect the best, you're bound to hell. Oh, yes, I'm a Stalinist now. Hell, even Stalinists have based their theories on an ACTUAL BASIS with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS unlike yourself. You expect me to explain to you how the expansion of the middle class creates inequality. Seriously now. It is totally equal when a doctor is being paid thousands of dollars, four-fold or even ten-fold the wage of a laborer. Oh yes, he'll have Plasma TVs in his living room, kitchen, bed room, fucking toilet, while the laborer barely has anything to keep him up other than that food which he buys with his "comfortable living wage". No inequality, no crime to be expect, and absolutely no jealousy, hatred, anger, or anything of that sort.

    "Hey buddy, I'll give you three Plasma TVs if you work for me"
    "Why no sir, I have been bred to not listen to people like you."
    "But come on, can you resist THREE Plasma TVs for a simple job!?",
    "Oh gosh gee wiz mistew, I guess it is better than my feeble wage!"

    If your system is based on voluntary work and free association between individuals then there is NOTHING to prevent such a thing to occur. That is how the middle class, rich class, or those who own more than the rest can start and ignite their rise in that system of yours. They would form parties, unions, work groups, guilds, whatever (or will you make all those illegal? :lmao: ) and from there start their demands. Need more explanation? I dearly hope not because it is the same as explaining for a kindergartner.

    If everyone is at the general consensus that they are happy with the situation, why would there be a formation of another society/country/system? There you have it people, Utopian at its best. You CANNOT insure that EVERYONE will be happy, given that there WILL BE DISSENT by those who are not happy seemingly due to the crappy wages they are going to get based on your "comfortable living wage" and the previous basis you implied. This minority, which would be more than just a handful given the circumstances, will send your system down the drain in no time. Reform happens for many, many reasons those of which are mostly not due to the public's will. Look at the Health-care reform of Obama's, half the fucking country is up in a bunch. Look at any other drastic reform that took a vital or a revolutionary step forward; they were overthrown by external and internal forces of discontent. It is not that at "any moment, a well structured self-sufficient society will collapse in ruin for absolutely no reason at all". There you go further deep into Utopia. :lmao: Do not underestimate economical problems, popular dissatisfaction (explained before), external interference, and the practical IMPOSSIBILITY of the ruling class and privileged to readily accept that all their property and privileges be taken away in the blink of an eye. Actually come to think of it, your theory is impossible. No need to look further than " the practical IMPOSSIBILITY of the ruling class and privileged to readily accept that all their property and privileges be taken away in the blink of an eye."

    No, absolutely no, the government CANNOT in NO WAY be kept from being corrupt, even the fucking Marxist-Leninist Vanguard became corrupt and turned into the vehemently hated and detested Stalin through an innocent and behind-the-scenes rise of his. "If you vest the most ardent revolutionary in absolute power, in a year or two he will become worse than the Tsar himself." -Bakunin. I sometimes ask myself if a Vanguard is necessary, I do not say otherwise, but on NO CONDITION does anyone assure us that it will be 100% corruption free, even based on a rota system. The IDEA is the fucking problem, not only is the way. Almost all "ways" have been tried and tested, dictatorships, monarchies, serfdom, parliamentarianism, vanguard, provisional governments, reformist governments, State Communist governments (or whatever you wish to twist and name it), etc. etc. A single entity CANNOT think for millions.

    Lebanon. The police and the military are conjoined into one called the "Darak", I do not know the correct term in English. There is no entity called the "police", but it is army men with Kalashnikovs and M-16s in their hands driving APCs and Humvees that are quite similar to the "police". They are trained as the military is trained and supplied with such armaments as you wish to propose. Now, saying that, I wish that you do look at it in reality. I will not explain for you will not realize anything, you have to see it for yourself. Go do so, either through google or otherwise.

    That is the only point I agree with you, Popular Militia based on a rota system to prevent the rise of superiority/authority over those who have appointed them. Now you speak of "power invested in them by the people", this is also as before either a contradiction or not explained because, as of yet, you have to explain to us the basis of your theory, who will be the decision maker and on what form, etc. etc.

    You speak of the people again. Please, I'm starting to beg you to EXPLAIN WHAT THE BASIS OF YOUR THEORY IS. Do I have to say more? I cannot reply to such a thing if I do not know WHAT THE PEOPLE REPRESENT, are they an asset or are they the society? I could go on and talk about sections and flawed arguments yet I do not have a whole argument or theory behind me, as you do now.

    The end of poverty. There you have it, by increasing the wages of people, even by a pathetic sum not even defined by our humble theoretician, poverty will end. Wow, just wow. Mr. Utopian Theoretician cannot FATHOM THE FUCKING IDEA THAT THE RICH AND MIDDLE CLASSES WILL NOT GIVE UP THEIR PRIVILEGES WITHOUT A FUCKING WAR. Get it? No? Shit.

    Clearly when you intend to start another system after a revolution (do you even support a revolution?) you will not think that work hours will be cut short now, do you? Miners do not live in holes, but most of their day they spend in holes, same for doctors who some of them have opened offices in their homes. "I think miners should be paid more than doctors" That is what I needed to hear, but oh, what is that? What would make doctors become so instead of being miners who are paid more? Flaw, after flaw, after flaw, will you not understand that your system is not applicable by any means being on any planet? Even in fucking Utopia. What about apprenticeship? What are you trying to prove? It is able to be implemented in all fields of work, even for doctors.

    I still even have to explain such things to him... :ecouteurs: :lmao:
    Social intervention: Bullying, wars, conflict, racism, family-related issues.
    Background: Is he a farmer living in an agrarian society or do you plan on revolutionizing the whole world? Is his father/mother a carpenter that they wish their sons and daughters to become so?
    Tradition: Same as above, is the family taking up a tradition of employment, such as his great grandfather, his grandfather, and his father have all been winemakers, he is doomed to join in with the tradition.
    Nuisances from society: Same as bullying, social discrimination (oh you wish to abolish that too?), looked down upon, attempting to fit the status quo (oh, there will be no such thing?)
    Other reasons: All that would come to mind.

    There you go, now it seems that you have no understood even these and yet you continue to dabble and mumble statements of void meaning. Sad. :/

    Oh, and there you have it folks. This person believes that not all who attend school/university or strive tirelessly in society do not wish to live the American Dream and the reach the top. Oh no, people are fine living as such. :lmao: Do you join University to become a butcher? Or wait, perhaps a miner... Oh no, no, I think you join a University to become a garbageman, yes that is it. You do not strive to reach the top by becoming a doctor, engineer and the like. Dude, stop embarrassing yourself. :lmao: Do I also need statistics to prove this? :lmao:

    THERE IS NO FUCKING LIVING WAGE IN AN ANARCHO-COMMUNIST SOCIETY. OH MY FUCKING GOD THIS GUY IS AN IDIOT. You DID NOT even ATTEMPT to read that post. God fucking darn it, this guy is the benchmark of idiocy. Read it again, and again, till you fucking get it and attempt to comprehend what I had said. You cannot compare the atrocities of working in a mine to the "oh so hard" work of becoming a doctor by sitting in an air conditioned room, reading, and studying as opposed to risking your fucking life, your offsprings and family, your fucking limbs to a measly rock fall or a cave-in. Oh yes, I'm a fucking fascist to you it seems. This guy is an idiot, where the fuck did you get him from?

    o_O


    Did... Wow... I mean... Damn. From your own fucking argument, wiseguy: "So what if in your fantasy everyone decides they want to be a doctor anyway? Well that's where "demand" comes in. Too many doctors, not enough patients? Doctors get paid less. Don't need em. Not enough farmers? Now farmers are the ones who are making more than doctors. Need farmers. Those who are driven by money will go wherever it's at. The wages are not set in stone. They fluctuate according to need, but always at standard living. That means there will always be people willing and able to go into every field." You mentioned the cut of doctors' wages and the increase of the farmers' wages because there is an influx of doctors and few farmers. Now, did you get that or not? Hopefully you have and I can copy and paste my still valid argument: As you can see lads, this person clearly understands NOTHING and is sounding as bad as a Capitalist. This lad over here has never heard of strikes apparently, nor of riots, nor even of protests. Do you actually believe that you can simply cut the wages of doctors and increase the wages of farmers? Now tell me how the fuck will you cut wages of the doctors to increase the area of need (farmers) without facing any strikes, riots, or protests by those affected.

    Implement standards to avoid this kind of "corruption"? What fucking corruption, he is speaking of Capitalism, the basis of it is that no Employer will pay his workmen or hire them unless he can make a decent profit out of what he pays them, but sadly you did not even understand that.

    Oh and, literally every single one of your arguments has been a strawman. Every single one. They have no basis nor logical substance and in your own words you continue to disregard my points and refuse to answer my questions, as I have responded to EACH and EVERY question you proposed and posted unless I skipped it by accident while you did not and even skipped half of my post.

    Again and again:

    WHATEVER THE FUCK HAPPENED TO
    "Before you reply I simply request that:
    1) You outline your ideology, the basics of it and all.
    2) You reply in FULL, do not even exclude anything.
    3) That you actually read my post.
    4) That you try to refrain from using attacks instead of arguments."

    Did you suffer from severe brain lag? Fucking idiot. Skip part 4, I'm over that now.
     
  3. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    Sludgefuck was banned for an undetermined* period of time.
    The reason given was "trolling", everybody move on...



    * = as far as I know
     
  4. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    Are you serious? Who decided that he should be banned? Do not tell me it was solely the moderators' decision. If it is so, I request that a second voting process be made.
     
  5. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisasterExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    The banhammer did come down quickly, but I think it is only temporary and necessary to stop this latest bit of fighting.
     
  6. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    Temporary it seems. No problem with that.
     
  7. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,618

    125

    666

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    I decided he should be banned, I gave him several warnings in past weeks and he decided that it didn't matter, there is no general consensus when it comes to trolling and specially when stating that he wishes a person to be raped and murdered.
     
  8. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    Scratch that. And there you have it people, one man authority coming from a website based on website-wide direct democracy by all of its members. Hail to Stalin, the hijacker. The topic for his ban appeal was also deleted, you deserve an applaud good sir. Bakunin was right after all "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself."

    We all wish shit, do they happen? No. Trolling? Everyone trolls, take a look at a few pages at how inconsistent we are.
     
  9. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    First, when did he say that ?

    Secound, you didn't achive anything with banning him. Just lost one guy. He's not a total idiot. He has some good points. Maybe he's arguing to much, and calling names. But if you look at it that way, many people here should be banned. Sludgy was a bit ignorant, but so is ungovrn. (btw, where is he?), vassili77, random guy etc. Just don't tell me they they were proveked.
     
  10. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,618

    125

    666

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Here you go Bacika...

    You can call me whatever the fuck you'd like, call me Hitler, call me Pol Pot, call me Stalin, cause that's not histrionics at all.... :lmao:

    Bottom line you have no clue, I was actually defending Sludgefuck for several months, trying to work with him on not being so abrasive with other forum members, warning him several times when an outright ban was more than warranted. This site has a charter, you don't have to follow it if you don't want, but you also don't have to be here if you can't agree to it.

    And Bakica Ungovernable is the person that invented this site and did all the code etc. etc. if not for him this wouldn't exist so get a clue will you.

    Random Person From There, I suggest you re-read the charter and the "who are we?" text. This isn't the place to go off half cocked at people and have endless shitfights where nothing but insults and degradation are accomplished, if that's what you are looking for then go look somewhere else.
     
  11. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    Wow some shit we have here, becouse he made this forum means he can be jerk, but others can't. What, you mods think you are the smartes here ? Just becouse you run the forum, doesn't mean anything.

    Again, sludgefuck never said that he supports rape or muder.
     
  12. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,618

    125

    666

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    No one is fucking forcing you to be here Bakica, go somewhere else if it bothers you so much, if Ungovernable is such a fucking asshole and the mods are all tyrants and it's so fucking horrible and oppressive here, go somewhere where everything is lollipops and rainbows. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about Sludge because he and I had a lot of private discussion, that is just that, private. He knew that he said some horrible things in the past that should have got him banned and he apologized and promised not to continue it, but he couldn't help himself.
     
  13. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    So you admit that you guys are mods in full meaning of the word ? Like, bosses around here ?
     
  14. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    5,618

    125

    666

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    What the fuck are you talking about? I can't take anything you say seriously with that signature you have, you made your mind up a long time ago obviously so don't sit here and put words in my fucking mouth Bakica. I think what I wrote is clear enough for you to understand, if not have someone translate it for you.
     
  15. JackNegativity

    JackNegativityExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    885

    1

    28

    Nov 9, 2010
     
    I'm still relatively new to the forum (3 months or so) but here's my take:

    Obviously the guy was abusive and beligerrant (sp?). Personally, I just put him on my foe list to ignore everything he said. This isn't the course of action I think I would've taken, but then again I don't know the content of the private messages between Sludge and the moderators so I guess I can't really make a fully informed opinion on that part. I haven't had much contact with Ungovernable, but from what I've seen punkmar77 is a pretty honorable guy and has my trust.

    Obviously, though this is the closest to an anarchist society we have, it's still a privately owned forum (though collectively managed from what I understand). We all run the risk of violating the charter (which by participating in this forum we agree on) at our own peril. We democratically vote on who the mods are. It's my understanding that the mods are not a form of authority, but members of the forum we elect to keep threads on topic and to ban trolls. I also remember reading in the latest "we need new mods" thread that any one of us can request to be given the ability to observe moderator discussions so nothing is secret. If you have a problem with a particular mod or the workings of the forum, some possible solutions are:

    1. Don't vote for them. When they are up for election to moderator status and you don't agree with them, make a decent case against them.
    2. If you think a previously elected mod shouldn't be a mod, propose it be put to a vote.
    3. Just as in an anarchist community, if you disagree with the way things are run here you are free to move on to another community (forum) that is more to your liking.

    So to recap: we choose the mods, we put our faith in them to do their job, mods are not authority but servants to the forum, and ultimately, the entire APN community. From what i've seen punkmar77 has effectively done the job we've entrusted him with, and if he says he's given this dude more chances than he even deserved then I believe him.
     
  16. Bakica

    BakicaExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    951

    0

    0

    Feb 21, 2010
     
    Isn't that like chosing the president ? WE choose presidents. And yes, he banned sludgefuck without voting, and as far as I know the poll to ban him was eqal for yes - no. Just becouse he, and two guys agrees that sludge should be banned, doesn't mean it's right.

    No offense to anyone, I don't mean to argue.
     
  17. JackNegativity

    JackNegativityExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    885

    1

    28

    Nov 9, 2010
     
    No we don't choose the president. We're given two people to choose from and are told our decisions matter even though they don't. The president is in a position of authority, the mods aren't. They keep the threads on topic and kick out the trolls. That's the internet forum equivalent of a janitor and garbageman. They provide a service to the community. If you have a problem with the job they do, you have the right to voice your opinion as to how the job can be better performed. Try doing that with the president/ruling party of whatever country you reside in. It's not remotely the same.

    Anyway, this isn't really the sludgefuck vs. mods forum. I guess I should probably end what I'm saying here. If it needs to be discussed more in depth, I suggest we make a new thread for it.
     
  18. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    There was a topic concerning Sludgefuck and a poll to appeal his ban, but it was seemingly deleted.

    Parliamentaryism at its best, whatever happened to Direct Democracy coming from the bottom? If this is what you call "trolling" then I really do suggest you people go on more forums.

    I do have respect for you Punkmar, do not get me wrong, but the way this was dealt with wasn't by any means logical nor acceptable by the standards this website portrays itself. From the "Who We Are" text which is now turning into The Communist Manifesto as it so seems:

    "4) HOW IT WORKS

    Anarchism meaning order without power -- the forum is horizontally structured so all of the
    moderation decisions are coming from the bottom
    . There is an "Assembly" forum where members can democratically
    make decisions concerning the management of the forums and changes to be made on the website.
    A collective of moderators is needed to execute the moderation tasks (messages cleanup, albums listing
    management, ban of spammers and fascists, etc...). The moderation actions are limited to what is declared in
    this document, and is revisable by the community at any time. Moderators are democratically elected and
    retrograded by the community and are here only for technical tasks: all of the decisions are taken by the
    community in the form of Direct Democracy.
    "


    Then it speaks of "In all debates, please always pay attention to mutual respect and stay polite while avoiding personal attacks. Fighting each other will lead us nowhere." but with no assertions at what will the "punishment" of such action be.

    Then "2) OUR POLITICAL IDEAS AND POSITIONS

    Our community is built and based on the ideas and basis of anarchism, but we are not dogmatic elitists and our community is not exclusively limited to anarchist thinkers. We welcome anybody sharing the same interests as us: music and politics. Even if you are just curious you are welcome to join us."


    And then there's "However, our tolerance has some limit and we refuse to let fascists or capitalists reappropriate our community. The website is a TOOL for people wanting to organize, and is NOT a free tribune nor a place for useless ideological wars between people and their different converging ideas."
    Which I never really understood given the Politics & Serious Debates section.

    I see no reason why Sludgefuck should be banned given that there were no actual "proof" nor any "evidence" given of the claims you make which I'm sure you can supply, that which you present is merely ad hominem against someone who presumably opposes Anarchism not trolling for I am sure if you can give us the thread you took that from we can see an actual discussion being made (hopefully) as opposed to random insults just for laughs and getting kicks out of the other person as in Trolling. There should be a "trial" of sorts before such action should be taken against a neutral member, as opposed to say banning a Fascist, a spammer and their ilk. Yes, he and I did go at each other but that proves nothing, almost everyone on here tends to start using insults and the like when they get mad especially if it is a serious debate as such with the two sides equally stubborn. I think his ban deserves an appeal by vote, if he is unbanned then good for him; if not then we could say that this matter has been put to rest FAIRLY.

    We need people to voice their opinions on the matter and not have this turn into a totalitarian shadow government taking decisions without consent and without decisions being made by the members. This is reminding me of Stalin and his lovable Apparatchiks and the current system of Parliamentaryism.


    "In our representative democracy (or republic), the people don't have the power to decide, but they do have the power to decide who decides for them."
     
  19. JackNegativity

    JackNegativityExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    885

    1

    28

    Nov 9, 2010
     
    On one hand, engaging in endless shitfights and advocating someone be raped (?!) can be construed as trolling. I can't even count how many trolls i've seen banned since i've gotten here and not one of them was voted out, nor has there ever been a public outcry over it.

    On the other hand, like I said, you can always put someone in the foe category and ignore them. It wasn't the course of action I would have personally taken, even though I don't particularly like the guy's politics (or personality), but it is what it is. If we don't like an aspect of how the forum is run then let's fix it. Let's come up with a course of action for a situation like this instead of just complaining when it happens.

    Out of fairness, I wouldn't mind having a vote.
     
  20. Random Person From There

    Random Person From ThereExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    115

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2010
     
    There was a vote, it was removed by a mod. I will start another thread to appeal his ban, let people actually VOICE their opinions.
     
Loading...