Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ban Communists?

Rate this topic


Should all Communists and their sympathizers be banned from this forum?  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. Should all Communists and their sympathizers be banned from this forum?

    • Yes
      46
    • No
      37


Recommended Posts

I wanted to add that people OPENLY advocating communism and other such things in stark opposition to Objectivism should not be completely tolerated. My policy applies to anyone who dissents with something about Objectivism in part. Those people who disagree with all of the fundamentals don't really have any purpose here whatsoever, and they should be warned then banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like your proposition, RationalEgoist...

I have decided to adopt a policy of my own...

I will not post in answer to any disagreement with Objectivism unless that disagreement is stated as a question.

Examples:

A post beginning: "Objectivism is wrong about capitalism because capitalism is not considerate to the working class." Would not get an answer from me.

A post beginning: "Why does Objectivism agree with capitalism, doesn't that overlook the working class?" Would.

My reasoning is that this is a place for discussion of Objectivism, not open philosophic debate. Look at the first example and notice that it is not, in fact, a discussion of Objectivism, but a claim about the nature of capitalism.

I believe that this policy is considerate to those who are honestly interested in discussing Objectivism and its implication, while still unreceptive to those who are not.

Also, I would like to note that, since this is a place for discussion of Objectivism, names like: "Censor the Opposition," shouldn't be tolerated.

This may not be the case, but it appears that that name is an attempt to point out that the admin here are "censoring the opposition." In answer to this unstated claim, I will say again, this is a place for discussion of Objectivism. The existance of an "opposition" is grounds to "censor" them. To be clear: "opposition" is grounds for banning, honest interest is not.

Edit: The above policy is only intended for use on posts which are in obvious disagreement with Objectivism. A post in which the poster may think he is agreeing with Objectivism, should automatically be considered to be an error in judgment, and be responded to as such.

Edited by Richard_Halley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

or you run the risk of taking freedom of expression and information away from the site which, IMO, is something integral to an Objectivist forum.

Freedom for communists to disrupt the forum by filling it with their propaganda is definitely NOT integral to an Objectivist forum. It is precisely the banning of disruptors that is integral to an Objectivist forum that is to be kept Objectivist.

Rational self-interest doesn't mix with blanket tolerance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom for communists to disrupt the forum by filling it with their propaganda is definitely NOT integral to an Objectivist forum. It is precisely the banning of disruptors that is integral to an Objectivist forum that is to be kept Objectivist.

Rational self-interest doesn't mix with blanket tolerance.

If you had bothered to read my subsequent post, you would have realized that I was stating just that.

And just to make it clear, I agree that an objectivist forum is no place for preaching or disruption for the sake of disruption.

Please don't twist what I say by taking it out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had bothered to read my subsequent post, you would have realized that I was stating just that.

What I am saying is a bit more than just that. I am saying that we should be intolerant towards communists; that we should ban them for what they believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is a bit more than just that. I am saying that we should be intolerant towards communists; that we should ban them for what they believe.

I agree entirely.

When thinking about capitalism and communism, you have to bear in mind what it would mean to convert capitalism into communism.

That would mean brute force, grand scale looting and totalitarian rule.

Anyone who is a communist has to advocate just that and that is not possible to come to that conclusion honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalEgoistSG

Epistemological Kantian - not a troll.

Marxist - started trolling after a while.

"Metaphysicist" - anyone who espouses the following:

Premise: Transcendentalism is false.

Conclusion: Transcendentalism is true.

.... is an irrational troll.

The Kantian did not necessarily understand the contradiction we see. Neither did the Marxist. If "Metaphysicist" didn't, though, then there is simply no getting through and no reason to talk to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought that communists and other individuals of irrational trains of thoughts have just never been presented with the proper ideas to counter their own.

I, like many ignorant but politically interested kids, was a communist at thirteen. "oh it's great it just won't work!"

I instantly changed when confronted with the proper ideas articulated properly.

Of course, many people ARE closed and won't accept anything else..

But I was just lacking the proper ideas. And I'm sure there are many like me.

It took me two weeks to be an absolute advocate of objectivism, and I've been one for a year and a half. Because I encountered the proper ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is a bit more than just that. I am saying that we should be intolerant towards communists; that we should ban them for what they believe.

I appreciate the clarification.

Banning "disruptors" and "spreaders of proganda" is something I support, but not the banning of the proverbial commie, if only because I have little faith that only true communists on this forum would be labeled as such. Any mention of a welfare state or even public healthcare, and I'm deemed a commie.

Good to know your true opinion.

And, btw, the ads are the best part!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve's suggestions (see previous page) are reasonable. My main concern is that the main forums be reserved for serious philosophical discussion by students of Objectivism. That, to me, is the whole value of this board. If it is flooded by people who are either opposed to Objectivism, or even simply ignorant of it, that is a distraction from that purpose and thus diminishes the value of this board for those of us who are serious.

While I agree that some people just need to be exposed to rational ideas, I do not think that this board can generally be the place for such exposure initially. Those people should simply be directed to Rand's works to learn a little about the philosophy first. We cannot teach it from the very basics here. That disrupts our purpose of higher-level study (at least that's my purpose). However, Steve's idea of a separate forum for such people to ask questions is certainly at least worth a try, and I think would work quite well if the rest of his suggestions were implemented along with it.

But since it's his idea, he gets to be the moderator assigned to that particular forum. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ban the Bastards!

Should Nazis be allowed to participate? Of course not, you say.

And are Communists better?

Not historically.

Not ideologically.

Not personally.

The only difference is that Communism has a more sophisticated veneer, that can fool some of the younger, less experienced people. But this is no reason to give them a stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to make four points here. Reading back over some of the older messages, I noticed:

All I'm saying is that if we're trying to promote a system which endorses freedom of expression, it seems counterproductive to ban someone for what they believe.
This is a classic equivocation of "freedom". We are *not* trying to promote a system in which people refuse to make moral judgements, or take appropriate action. We are trying to promote a system in which government is strictly limited.

You've proved that all communists are dishonest and irrational!?

Let's be clear here. We don't mean the 13-yr old kid. We mean someone who actually understands communism's meaning, nature, and consequences. Communism is an evil idea. Anyone who grasps it and advocates it is also evil.

There is a different problem for the 13 yr old (or anyone else) who does not understand communism's nature, and yet advocates anyways: pretentiousness. This is a plague of our age. Schools spend enormous time and effort training students to feel that all ideas are equally valid, that idea content doesn't matter, that if you feel your idea is good then who the hell is anyone else to say it's not?

So naturally enough, they leave school and take this feeling with them wherever they go. Regardless of whether you think it is "unfair" for them to be disabused so roughly, it is a disvalue to the serious Objectivist to be constantly distracted by them.

Third, I'd like to note that men have volition. When I was younger, I was on a quest for the holy grail--that magic phrase to make a socialist or a christian *see*. I would debate anyone who would have me. I never did find it, because of course the problem was *not* innocent error of knowledge that I could help people correct. It was a myriad of intellectually-dishonest positions that reinforced and fed on eachother:

1) malevolent universe premises: things are stacked against you, success is temporary, fleeting, and a matter of luck which one doesn't deserve

2) altruism: in any relationship between two men, one must be sacrificed to the other

3) value is zero sum: it can be mooched, looted, distributed or redistributed, but not created nor destroyed

4) man's mind is impotent to know reality, feelings are superior to the illusion we call "reason"

5) Everything I believe is a figment of my desires, but who the hell am I to say my desires are superior to anyone else's?

6) etc etc etc

To such a person, who feels profoundly unable to achieve his values, and profoundly unworthy of them, a system forcing those who are somehow lucky to redistribute their goods just *FEELS RIGHT*.

Finally, I think there is value in a forum that lets people get past the basis (i.e. reality is reaon, reason works, man ought to life for his own sake, freedom is good, art should portrary heroic subjects) and on to the more advanced topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third, I'd like to note that men have volition.  When I was younger, I was on a quest for the holy grail--that magic phrase to make a socialist or a christian *see*.  I would debate anyone who would have me.  I never did find it, because of course the problem was *not* innocent error of knowledge that I could help people correct.  It was a myriad of intellectually-dishonest positions that reinforced and fed on eachother

I see this as a false alternative.

It is not the case that a person either sees the truth upon hearing a "magic phrase" or has "a myriad of intellectually-dishonest positions." It usually takes a lot more than "magic phrases" to educate and convince someone -- especially someone who is a careful, first-hand, independent thinker.

I know that when I discovered Ayn Rand if you had asked me if I believed in God I would have said, "Yeah, I guess so. Why not?" and my politics were quite left of center. Ayn Rand's view of man, her sense of life, and her ethics completely won me over immediately. After she convinced me that pursuing noble moral values, which had always been the goal of my life, did not require faith, I became an atheist. Politics took much longer. I had assumed that what my teachers had taught me about history and economics was true. It took several years of reading and research before I was convinced my teachers were wrong.

I would be extremely wary of making what could be unwarranted and unjust snap judgements about someone's intellectual honesty, sense of life, values, psycho-epistemology, or motivation based only on the positions he holds now or the results of a brief conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear here.  We don't mean the 13-yr old kid.  We mean someone who actually understands communism's meaning, nature, and consequences.  Communism is an evil idea.  Anyone who grasps it and advocates it is also evil.

There is a different problem for the 13 yr old (or anyone else) who does not understand communism's nature, and yet advocates anyways: pretentiousness.  This is a plague of our age.  Schools spend enormous time and effort training students to feel that all ideas are equally valid, that idea content doesn't matter, that if you feel your idea is good then who the hell is anyone else to say it's not?

So naturally enough, they leave school and take this feeling with them wherever they go.  Regardless of whether you think it is "unfair" for them to be disabused so roughly, it is a disvalue to the serious Objectivist to be constantly distracted by them.

As one who has only very recently transcended this stage (a year and a half ago, I'm sixteen today), I can utterly testify to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be extremely wary of making what could be unwarranted and unjust snap judgements
That is a good point

based only on the positions he holds now or the results of a brief conversation.

Which you could have applied to my post. I won't argue if I made snap judgements or based my judgements of people on brief conversations. I will simply say that I did not.

This has some of the feel to me of the discussion of whether or not it's fair for someone who opposes the Ayotollah regine in Iran to just be killed by a bomb one day. The US must do it for its own selfish interests. The fairness to that theoretically innocent man is not the issue.

It's the same with communists who come to a forum like this. The policy can either be designed for maximum "fairness" to the commie, or for maximum value for the Objectivists.

Maybe there is an occasional commie whose errors and dishonesty are the right combination that he can be persuaded otherwise. I submit that 999 out of 1000 commies will never develop into rational human beings, and the .1% who will aren't worth my time.

I assume that this forum is by and for Objectivists, and isn't here primarily to evangelize, much less correct all of the bad premises out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to remind you that the original question asks, “Should all Communists and their sympathizers be banned from this forum?”

When I say “Communist” I mean anyone who operates on Marxist/collectivist premises. One issue I have not seen addressed is what objective rules could be established to delineate Communists, since they rarely identify themselves as such explicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rule should be broader: any man who explicitly supports or defends a totalitarian regime or a totalitarian ideology cannot participate.

This is not "censoring the opposition", since the supporters of totalitarianism are not the real opposition to Objectivism. They are just a criminal rabble as far as I'm concerened.

They can't even morally demand the right of free speech, since they support its abolishment.

This also draws the line between people who believe in Socialism, but not in the complete abrogation of rights - and avowed communists.

Also - I suggest to ban anyone who uses the ad hominem attack (I.e. - when he continuously turns to personal attacks as a substitute for rational arguments).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say “Communist” I mean anyone who operates on Marxist/collectivist premises.  One issue I have not seen addressed is what objective rules could be established to delineate Communists, since they rarely identify themselves as such explicitly.

That is important but most important is WHY they accept Marxist premises.

When I was in school (and schools were much better then than they are now) my history teachers taught me "facts" that weren't true, but I respected them and believed them. I got involved with some leftist causes out of a sense of justice, benevolence, a desire to do the right thing.

That all changed when I read Ayn Rand, but it didn't change immediately. It took a couple years for me to learn what really happened in history and to reintegrate my knowledge.

The main way you can tell the difference between a student like me and a trolling Marxist -- and to treat each type justly -- is to avoid hasty judgements based on their emotional reactions or to yours. First ask WHY they believe what they do. If there are any factually wrong premises, politely say so and refer them to where they can verify what you say. Honest people will respond well to that approach and will eventually learn. Dishonest people won't and, at that point, you can escort them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that if we're trying to promote a system which endorses freedom of expression, it seems counterproductive to ban someone for what they believe.

For example, right now, there are a significant number of people on this forum who probably don't have too much knowledge of what objectivism is or why we should prescribe to it.  They are here to learn and gather information in order to decide in their own minds whether or not it is right for them.  If they see someone get banned simply because they don't dislike mao or marx or stalin, how are they then going to embrace these ideals of freedom of expression.  It seems a little hypocritical, maybe even totalitarian.

And just to make it clear, I agree that an objectivist forum is no place for preaching or disruption for the sake of disruption.

In my home, I teach my son to be an independent thinker. I don't endorse a complete "freedom of expression" because that would be absurd. (Eddie Izzard's comments about "babies on spikes" as an example) Rather, I encourage him to express himself freely in rational, constructive ways. However, despite the fact that I may encourage him to express himself freely in that manner, that doesn't mean that my house becomes a stage for anyone who wishes to express themselves freely SIMPLY because I promote that ideal. The same holds true of this forum as I see it.

This is the "home" of the family and friends of Objectivism (pretty much with GC as the patriarch in my understanding). By family I mean those who ARE full-fledged Objectivists, and by friends I mean those who seek more knowledge with the specific goal or inclination to BECOME a full-fledged Objectivist. I would further suggest that this is not a wading pool for people to test the waters. That should be done with Ayn Rand's books, IMO. (Or any acceptable more definitive literary work) I'm reading AR's books now, and I see this forum as a means to supplement that, not replace it.

No offense to the forum or it's operator (especially since I rather like both), but I do not find this forum the place by which to decide whether I would want to be an Objectivist or not. One MUST rationally go to the source of the information (AR) in order to find out if it makes sense to them, if it indeed fits into their view of life. This seems to be supported by the fact that I have noted several times when more senior members would direct people with questions to specific parts of AR literature. To suggest that the objectivist philosophy suffers and wouldn't be worth pursuing because one was banned from this forum is illogical.

That said, as a person who has not YET specifically declared himself a full-fledged Objectivist, I would hate to be relegated to some small area of the forum reserved for the neophytes. I would expect that if I were disruptive, but not because I'm simply still developing my base of knowledge in this philosophy. It is sincerely my goal to explore this philosophy and respectfully challenge it with questions if necessary, but not to disrupt others or attempt to convert them to other ideologies.

Sorry for my longwindedness..... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be extremely wary of making what could be unwarranted and unjust snap judgments about someone's intellectual honesty, sense of life, values, psycho-epistemology, or motivation based only on the positions he holds now or the results of a brief conversation.

Aside from being a tautology, this is irrelevant to the purpose at hand. I do not have to decide whether I want to marry these people, but whether their presence on this forum is a plus or minus to my values. Given this context, the only thing I have to decide is whether they will contribute to or disrupt the intellectual climate I want to achieve. Furthermore, I don’t have the luxury of putting up with them long enough to decide whether they are hopeless or not – a commie troll creates a disruption that must be dealt with now.

I know that when I discovered Ayn Rand if you had asked me if I believed in God I would have said, "Yeah, I guess so. Why not?" and my politics were quite left of center. Ayn Rand's view of man, her sense of life, and her ethics completely won me over immediately.

Neither am I concerned with people who have an essentially correct sense of life, with some (or many) inconsistent ideas. I identify someone as a communist by their basic premises (which Bearster already mentioned) not isolated opinions which may or may not be integrated with their basic philosophy. For purposes of this forum, this can in fact be determined from a few posts, and it has to be, as tolerating communists to any extent can noticeably decrease the value of this forum (speaking from experience.)

Here are some of the questions I consider to determine who is a troll:

Are they overwhelmingly negative, bitter, or sarcastic?

Do they offer intelligent responses to their opposition, or just keep repeating the same thing?

Do they ignore an intelligent response in one thread and start another repeating the same point?

Do they twist and fabricate common-sense facts?

Do they copy/paste mass volumes of their own/others content from other sources/forums?

When I rebuke them, do they claim that I am obligated to provide them with a forum to express their views?

If they disagree with Objectivism, are they here to learn or to spread propaganda and insults?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...