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

Well, that depends:D

Depends on what?

What the meaning of the word 'is' is?

If it is an automatically deletable offence to be a Nazi or a Fascist then why is it not so to be a Commie?

Is being a Commie somehow better?

If it is, then are you not committing the fallacy, popular with left-liberals, of 'socially acceptable totalitarianism' as I call it and, no doubt, many of you are familiar with it too.

What a load of rubbish. :yarr: When commies come here, delete them faster than Carl Lewis with his butt on fire and save debate for rational people. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Self declared communists should be banned in this forum.

Anybody currently of a socialist/marxist stance, who has been touched by, say, one of Ayn Rand's books should be welcomed and his/her questions entertained.

However should they decide, or it become evident that they are in total disagreement with Objectivist principles they should be revoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self declared communists should be banned in this forum ...

I voted to ban commies, but not particularly because they are commies. They are hardcore collectivists, and that is their essential problem.

I would ban these types:

1. Hardcore Collectivists and Anarchists

2. Hardcore Altruists and Pragmatists

3. Hardcore Skeptics and Mystics

4. Hardcore Supernaturalists and Nihilists

I think most of the rotten ideologies fall into one or more of the above categories. Depending on individual cases, I might be somewhat patient, as long as the member made an effort to focus on objections to his arguments and didn't become hostile toward Objectivism. But once he becomes hostile or evades quality objections, then he is hardcore in my book and should be warned or banned.

There is another category I would consider banning, and that is the complete idiot. The stubbornly irrational. This type, however, should be given a lot of warnings before given the boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come here to debate with rational individuals. If I ask a question, I expect an answer from an Objectivist, not from a non-Objectivist whose answers would not help. If I wanted an opinion from a non-Objectvist I would seek one out personally. If a non-Objectivist wants an Objectivist opinion he need not resort to an Objectivist forum to find his answers. He should seek one out personally are go to another forum. Thank you. That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted no, though let's face it I've been here about 2 days and my opinion doesn't count for anything. However, if someone's being polite and willing to listen to other sides of an argument then I don't see a problem with communists/fascists whoever posting. If there was no difference in opinion then the message board would be a pretty quiet place after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If there was no difference in opinion then the message board would be a pretty quiet place after all.

There can be plenty of difference of opinion among people who accept the fundamental principles of Objectivism. We don't need to pretend that Communists and Fascists have something positive to offer (or worth discussing at all) just to have something to talk about around here. Remember that there can be no compromise on fundamental principles.

Edited by AshRyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wouldn't say to ban Communists, per se, but rather to ban irrationalists. How to do that?

Well, these are the rules that we use over at CapitalistParadise, which I came up with:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...wtopic=183&st=0

There are a few others, where we insist that the Marxist definition of Capitalism NOT be used:

It is a standard Marxist argument that everything that is related to "business" is necessarily "Capitalist." But Capitalism is an ideology, not an economic status.

Any attempt to use this argument, that "x was done by a business and therefore it is the fault of Capitalism," should be edited out of any post that attempts it. A link should be provided to this post, with perhaps a short explanation.

To further clarify:

(from www.capitalism.org)

And we also have a rule that insists complaints about the board and the management be in their proper place:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=261

You folks are welcome to use these if I am given credit. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, these are the rules that we use over at CapitalistParadise, which I came up with:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...wtopic=183&st=0

I do not get the very first rule that I read.

"1) No 'Trolling.' Trolling is defined here as making controversial or inflammatory statements against one position without defining or defending the position that one is for. Making controversial or inflammatory statements and then refusing to support or defend those statements is also 'Trolling'."

"

I am not completely sure what you mean by "controversial or inflammatory statements" but, regardless, you allow them as long as you "support or defend" them. Okay with that. But why then is it against the rules -- why is it trolling -- to make such statements against a position unless you present "the position that one is for?" In other words, why can you not criticize some position without having an alternative position of your own? Why would seeing the errors in another's position necessarily require that you have a position that you are for? Afterall, it is perfectly proper to recognize that you do not have enough information to advance a position on some issue, but you can still see the errors in a position that someone else advances. I do not understand why that makes you a troll, and why that is against the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why then is it against the rules -- why is it trolling -- to make such statements against a position unless you present "the position that one is for?" In other words, why can you not criticize some position without having an alternative position of your own? Why would seeing the errors in another's position necessarily require that you have a position that you are for? Afterall, it is perfectly proper to recognize that you do not have enough information to advance a position on some issue, but you can still see the errors in a position that someone else advances. I do not understand why that makes you a troll, and why that is against the rules.

I agree with Stephen.

Besides, I think that this definition of trolling is not very exact. Trolling is provocation for the sake of creating confusion and annoyance, and not for the sake of true debate. Quoting someone out of context, or misquoting him by purpose - can also be a part of trolling.

Raising issues for the sake of eliciting emotional responses is also trolling - for example, some guy started a topic asking if rape was moral - a few months back. This is trolling par excellence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say to ban Communists, per se, <Snip>

Rubbish!

So far, at Capitalist Paradise, the banning rate for commies is 100%. Every single one who has posted has been banned or asked not to post. All of this is after much sisyphean effort that makes Captain Scott's polar expeditions seem efficacious by comparison.

Commies are irrationalists. If anyone has got far enough to believe that a totalitarian system is viable in any way then they are well past the point of rational discussion.

Delete, delete, delete! :D:yarr:B)

You know it makes sense. :pimp:B)

I love deleting posts BTW. :yarr:B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As BlackSabbath says, all commies are eventually revealed as irrationalists. It all depends on how much effort you want to put into the matter. The "sisyphean effort" he describes are for cases that are before the rules, or where exceptions have been made. It's quite easy if done right (which I'm getting better at).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not completely sure what you mean by "controversial or inflammatory statements" but, regardless, you allow them as long as you "support or defend" them. Okay with that.

The idea behind "controversial or inflammatory" was "statements whose entire purpose is to elicit an emotional response and incite controversy." Now that I examine it, it is a bit fuzzy.

But why then is it against the rules -- why is it trolling -- to make such statements against a position unless you present "the position that one is for?" In other words, why can you not criticize some position without having an alternative position of your own? Why would seeing the errors in another's position necessarily require that you have a position that you are for? Afterall, it is perfectly proper to recognize that you do not have enough information to advance a position on some issue, but you can still see the errors in a position that someone else advances. I do not understand why that makes you a troll, and why that is against the rules.

The intent of the rule is to prevent people from hiding or refusing to divulge their communism. Basically, they will come on and say "capitalism is bad because it is unequal" or somesuch. It makes things easier if the rules require them to say "capitalism is unequal; I offer as the alternative: Communism and mass murder."

If someone said that they honestly can't figure out what the right solution is, then I would not consider it against the intent of that rule.

Stephen, do you consider it unnecessary? How would you solve the problem of "snipers" who won't reveal their own ideology? You seem to have a pretty good handle on these things, so I would welcome your input. Did you read the rest of the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, do you consider it unnecessary? How would you solve the problem of "snipers" who won't reveal their own ideology? You seem to have a pretty good handle on these things, so I would welcome your input. Did you read the rest of the rules?

I don't know about Stephen, but I think "snipers", if they use reason in their criticism, can serve an important role in the discussion. Socrates was one such "sniper" - he pointed out defects in his opponents views, but did not claim to know better than them, or to have a solution of his own. I would welcome a man such as Socrates to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As BlackSabbath says, all commies are eventually revealed as irrationalists. It all depends on how much effort you want to put into the matter. The "sisyphean effort" he describes are for cases that are before the rules, or where exceptions have been made. It's quite easy if done right (which I'm getting better at).

I got round this, over at Capmag, by making marxist arguments a warning offence and open declarations of communism/marxism an automatic banning offence. :D

Then I delete, delete and delete! :yarr:

I love deleting posts! :yarr:B):pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Stephen, but I think "snipers", if they use reason in their criticism, can serve an important role in the discussion. Socrates was one such "sniper" - he pointed out defects in his opponents views, but did not claim to know better than them, or to have a solution of his own. I would welcome a man such as Socrates to this forum.

That's funny, I think BlackSabbath is of the opinion that "the gadfly" was a troll! :pimp:

I have to admit that the troll rule was at his request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of the rule is to prevent people from hiding or refusing to divulge their communism.

If that is your intent then you should have a rule which states that explicitly. You previously stated that you would not ban Communists per se, and here you say that you do not want them to hide their ideology. So a rule that would be consistent with your intent would be to require all Communists to identify themselves as Communists when they enter your forum, and another rule which requires all posters to identify their ideology when asked for by a forum authority. Now, personally I think such management to be rather silly, but those would be rules consistent with your intent. Your rule #1 which I objected to does not reflect your now stated intent.

If someone said that they honestly can't figure out what the right solution is, then I would not consider it against the intent of that rule.
Then the rule as stated is meaningless.

Stephen, do you consider it unnecessary? How would you solve the problem of "snipers" who won't reveal their own ideology?

I'm not sure why it is so important in an open forum for people to "reveal their own ideology." If you want to ban people with certain ideologies then do so openly and outright. Otherwise, deal with the criticism that they make of your positions and defend your views accordingly.

You seem to have a pretty good handle on these things, so I would welcome your input.
I have no special expertise in this.

Did you read the rest of the rules?

No. I stopped after the first rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the advice.

You're welcome.

I can clear up BlackSabbath's rule. Now, what is your opinion of my rules?

What very strange wording this is. When you first offerred these "rules" for use on this forum, you said: "Well, these are the rules that we use over at CapitalistParadise, which I came up with:" (Emphasis mine.) You presented them as being your rules. Now that the very first rule has been criticized, you attribute that rule to someone else and invite me now to look at your rules again. This seems as if you want to disown and give discredit to someone else for what you originally claimed credit for as your own.

Anyway, thanks for the invitation to review your other rules, but I have a lot of other things that I would much rather do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that the troll rule was at his request.

The request for that rule was by BlackSabbath. I understand that you're not a mind reader. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I honestly didn't remember when I posted the link the details of the formation of that rule.

The point is, that wasn't AT ALL what I wanted your opinion on. I wanted it for the other rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone greatly dislikes following links, the rules are the implementation of the idea presented in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, where a philosopher must state their axioms before uttering a syllogism. (I believe this was called Rand's Razor?)

In short, the rules say that you can be banned if you do not accept the three axioms.

(The interesting thing about this is that I didn't even remember that passage when I was creating those rules; I must have either absorbed it subconsciously, or it just plain makes that much sense!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A communist is a communist (one who completely agrees with communism).  (A is A)!

Well, but a self-described "communist" might not realize the implications of accepting that label. They might just have a read a few vague ideas about communism and thought it sounded good. (I was like that briefly in high school. Thankfully the Objectivists I met in college were still willing to talk to me.)

In any case I voted no; I say judge people according to whether they can interact rationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, but a self-described "communist" might not realize the implications of accepting that label. They might just have a read a few vague ideas about communism and thought it sounded good. (I was like that briefly in high school. Thankfully the Objectivists I met in college were still willing to talk to me.)

In any case I voted no; I say judge people according to whether they can interact rationally.

If a communist is able to interact rationally, then he is not a decided communist.

I think a rational man who has read "a few vague ideas about communism", even if he liked them for some reason, will not call himself a communist until he learns more about communism.

Anyway, the question was not whether Objectivists should or should not talk to Communists, but whether Communists should or should not be allowed to participate in this Objectivist forum. Do you see the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I see the difference. I don't think this forum should just be for those who have already extensively studied Objectivism and are committed to it. I don't see why curious newbies should not be allowed as long as they act rationally. That might include a few self-described communists. Or it may be that all such people are irrational, but then they should be banned for that, not for being communists.

I'm sure many people here held all sorts of odd views before discovering Objectivism; why hold that against similar people if they are genuinely interested in exploring new ideas and evaluating them rationally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the reasons above, I don't think the best approach is to simply ban Communists based on their political philosophy.

The key is to ban people at the philosophic level in which argument is not possible: the Metaphysical. Just use Rand's Razor.

Think about it: is there anything to be gained from people who believe A is not A, that existence does not exist, or that consciousness is not conscious?

Again, I have done it this way: if they make a statement in violation of those axioms, they are given a warning and told not to post anything else until the error is resolved. Every further post that does not resolve it is given another warning and on three warnings they are banned.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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