Raymond Pist, enemy of free speech

[somedude]

Originally Posted by Emily Johnson

Someone has way to much time on her hands! Let's meet up and hunt Somedude!

Ohay onay!

Originally Posted by Brek

It is important to bear in mind the stakes we are debating for here. An honest libertarian values freedom not just for some arbitrary reason but because freedom is what human beings innately deserve and desire. Because to be free is to be able to grow and mature and become an ethical human being in the fullest sense of the word. And this means that an honest, authentic libertarian not only opposes negatively any unnecessary domination or authoritarian intervention that does not stop a rights conflict or perform some vital need, but also personally does not resolve disputes with any statist means until one has completely exhausted all possible alternatives, ESPECIALLY when this person clearly behaved cavalierly without the slightest regard for the safety or comfortability of the PRIVATE forum he was part of. Even Murray Rothbard, in his libertarian utopia, uses only a judicial system, not a parliamentary or legislative system, to resolve disputes, one where there is a fair arbiter but where people themselves adversarially decide. (I have some problems with Rothbard and his ideas, and support a non-statist anarchist federated polity and economy, but that is neither here nor there).

"Fair enough,though the irony of course is that this public debate must take place here, rather than at RC, where it began. Because I currently am unable to post on RC--what with being banned and all. This challenge would have gone unanswered except for the fact that some of my old friends from RC called it to my attention. "

Ironic, yes. Good point? No.

"Let's start with your last question first: What RC did, specifically, is ban me, not because I broke any laws or any rules, but because someone didn't like some of the things I said (while other people DID like the same things, and still others took the more appropriate position that I was entitled to my opinions, even if they dissagreed. And of course, everyone had the option to use the "ignore" button on me.) I was banned, permanently, without warning, and without good reason, from a forum where I made numerous on-topic contributions, and made more than a few friends. That's what they did."

Well, Raymond, there's a few problems with that argument.

First of all, an admin can stop even cogent and thoughtful posts if the posts are so detrimental to the character of the site that they actually ruin everyone else's time, just as if I show up to a book club about Bakunin and start talking about Harry Potter and the administrator decides to ask me to PARTICIPATE. This can be abused, but many of your posts could easily be justified as being eliminated under this rubric.

Second, with rape fantasy, to clearly acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of the men and women involved and to distinguish between fantasy and reality, whatever our predilections, is also important. This is another thing that I think you may misunderstand or improperly check against.

Third, if you are banned, perhaps e-mailing the admin and asking what happened would be a good idea before you attempt to ruin the whole site. And when you were given a second chance, you were rude and crass to administrators and others.

A certain level of courtesy, behavior and wisdom is appropriate, and I feel that you may be lacking it.

Now, I happen to disagree with your banning, but clearly to trump authoritarian motives by private, non-corporate actors who are acting, possibly misguided, in the best interest of the long-term existence and membership of the forum, with asking PUBLIC tyranny to intervene on your behalf is a joke. You are asking the state to oppress in order to stop oppression. That is antithetical to every part of libertarianism. I would personally have tolerated some of what you did and then PMed you privately with warnings or used the delete button.

By the by, the fact that others can go out of their way to ignore you does not justify you being a troll. QED.

"Does it warrent "outing the community to your friends and family"? No. Nor do I understand why you would think that I have the power to do that. I don't know any of your family or friends. Most people don't post under their real names. And my beef is not with any individual member of RC. Just with the administrator who wrongly banned me. And even for that, I hold no real animosity, I only asked that the situation be resolved."

Sometimes, Raymond, in the real world bosses and other people will do mean and unwarranted things to you. The only recourse, sometimes, is to grow up.
Not beg for Big Brother to help.

By the way, Raymond: If the FBI or other agencies or groups do end up actually paying any attention, I doubt it but hey, they can do IP scans and investigation and find pretty much everything about every one of us out. Especially those with pictures posted. Further, the more someone posts, the more likely they will be able to find things out about them. Therefore, you are punishing people for cogent activity. The ironies just mount.

"RC and online communities like it exist only because they fly under the radar of those busybodies who would like to see it censored. Just bringing it to the attention of these holier-than-thou pencil-pushers would likely be the beginning of the end of RC. (And while they look for ways to pull the plug, RC would be under such intense scrutiny, that NOBODY would feel free to speak their minds.)"

Which is precisely why your behavior is so noxious and against proper expression, far trumping your own illegitimate experience.

Bear in mind, Raymond, that though alternative media for you do not justify bad administration, you can, at NO COST and very little time, create your own forum or site, possibly even getting it linked from Rape Club or Rape Board. You can use personals. You can join dozens of other boards.

A forum, which is a PRIVATE institution, has a certain degree of leeway to make standards of behavior and content and to ban those who do not comply.

"THIS is what was done to me. Is my nose for irony really that keen, that I'm the only one who can see it? I'm going to type this next bit really slowly: THEY prevented ME from posting, sooooooooooooo my only recourse was to say "Excuse me, but if you don't allow me to post, I'll do that which is in my power to show you how it feels to not be allowed to post." It's the only option I had. While I believe in free speech on the internet, forgive me if I don't shed a tear at the prospect of those who do NOT believe in free speech being censored. Those who CLAIM to believe in free speech, but mean free speech only for themselves and not others, are much less deserving of that right."

No, you had another option, Raymond. Be the bigger man and put it down. Make a new account and behave according to the rules of the forum. NO ONE EVER DESERVES TO BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. By your logic, Republicans and Nazis could be deprived of their rights to free speech and justice. If libertarianism is to mean ANYTHING, and Chomsky and Rand agree on this, Pist, it is CATEGORICAL. NO ONE is deprived of the rights that are provided. As Chomsky puts it, Stalin and Hitler were for free speech they liked.

"Finally, we're up to your first sentence. Objectivists and Liberertarians rarely see eye to eye (Objectivists claim that Libertarans "stole" the idea of freedom from them. ) And of course, neither Objectivists nor Libertarians suffer Fascists gladly. And Fascists hate everybody."

You're joking, right? Ayn Rand describes a system of market justice and personal rights that, whether or not an individual libertarian left or right disagrees with it (I sure as hell do), is fully in line with libertarianism. Other Objectivist philosophies are very much anti-libertarian... as anti-libertarian as turning to the FBI to repress others' speech because you don't like what they say on their own board that they put their own effort and time to run.

"I haven't threatened to shut RC down. Again, I don't know why you would endow me with such superpowers. I only threatened to bring RC to the attention of those type of people who like to shut these types of things down. And only that, IF I wasn't allowed to post there, just like everyone else who abides by the rules."

"I didn't shoot him, officer, I just hired someone else to do it!"

Actually, Raymond, I would respect you MORE if you handled the problem yourself. The fact that you turn to state repression and then try to wash your hands of it is the PROBLEM. Don't ever claim you're a libertarian if you call the cops because your feelings are hurt.

"NOBODY who posts there wants RC to be shut down. Again, I've been in contact with some very sensible people who agree that having a pissing match is silly when we really all just want the same thing: to be able to discuss our opinions in a vibrant online community on topics which interest us all. There are some technical issues yet to be hammered out, and there is some concern about how some of the folks who were responsible for getting me unfairly banned in the first place will respond to my return."

Fantastic. Then put down the big repressive stick and handle it privately. Make compromises. Listen. Actually put your money where your mouth is. Liberty is hard. Justice is hard. It requires respecting other people's latitude.

"So you see, there is no need at the moment to be overly concerned with me carrying out my threat anyway. I'm confident that in the end, freedom will prevail---it usually does in the long run. "

Hitler could have said that. Neither you or I would respect that answer with a response. The fallacy is obvious: Your individual contribution against freedom, no matter how small or unsuccessful, is wrong.

You then DARE to quote Niemoller, ignoring that YOU are the one trying to get the Jews shot.

By the way, Raymond... I proposed the title, Objectivist Neo-Fascist, to Pieter. Here's why. You advocate free speech while turning to repression to deprive it. Ironically echoing the very hypocrisy you say should deprive you of free speech. YOU YOURSELF HAVE PRODUCED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR BAN. Your interlocutors hold less extreme free speech positions than you do, there is no hypocrisy except that you express. (I, incidentally, hold much more extreme, and consistent, ones.)

If it weren't for the rules saying that I can't insult members, I would let you know what an incopetent dumbass you are; but, I'm a good girl and will follow the rules by simply saying, *you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer* .

[Emily Johnson]

Awww! You've all chased Raymond away.

[Raymond Pist]

[QUOTE=Brek]It is important to bear in mind the stakes we are debating for here. An honest libertarian values freedom not just for some arbitrary reason but because freedom is what human beings innately deserve and desire.

True.

Because to be free is to be able to grow and mature and become an ethical human being in the fullest sense of the word. And this means that an honest, authentic libertarian not only opposes negatively any unnecessary domination or authoritarian intervention that does not stop a rights conflict or perform some vital need, but also personally does not resolve disputes with any statist means until one has completely exhausted all possible alternatives,

Also True.

ESPECIALLY when this person clearly behaved cavalierly without the slightest regard for the safety or comfortability of the PRIVATE forum he was part of.

The result of Free speech is not always comfort. As for safetly, I don't believe my posting on a message board was a threat to anyone's safetly.

"Let's start with your last question first: What RC did, specifically, is ban me, not because I broke any laws or any rules, but because someone didn't like some of the things I said (while other people DID like the same things, and still others took the more appropriate position that I was entitled to my opinions, even if they dissagreed. And of course, everyone had the option to use the "ignore" button on me.) I was banned, permanently, without warning, and without good reason, from a forum where I made numerous on-topic contributions, and made more than a few friends. That's what they did."

Well, Raymond, there's a few problems with that argument.

First of all, an admin can stop even cogent and thoughtful posts if the posts are so detrimental to the character of the site that they actually ruin everyone else's time, just as if I show up to a book club about Bakunin and start talking about Harry Potter and the administrator decides to ask me to PARTICIPATE. This can be abused, but many of your posts could easily be justified as being eliminated under this rubric.

My posts, as I recall, were all on-topic. And unlike in your bookclub example, every single person had the ability to ignore me completly, if they so wished.

Second, with rape fantasy, to clearly acknowledge the rights and responsibilities of the men and women involved and to distinguish between fantasy and reality, whatever our predilections, is also important. This is another thing that I think you may misunderstand or improperly check against.

For some, (indeed, I suspect for most) the bluring of the line is where the fun begins. To truly enjoy rape fantasy REQUIRES that one forget, at least briefly, that it's just a fantasy. Otherwise, all you are left with is just some S & M, maybe some B & D, between a D & S.

Third, if you are banned, perhaps e-mailing the admin and asking what happened would be a good idea before you attempt to ruin the whole site.

I did (though you may not have been privy to that, you might have assumed that I did, or asked.)

And when you were given a second chance, you were rude and crass to administrators and others.

I disagree on two levels. First of all, I'm never rude nor crass, and second, and more important, I was never given a second chance. Just banned, permanently, and without warning.

A certain level of courtesy, behavior and wisdom is appropriate, and I feel that you may be lacking it.

I often feel the same way about people with whom I disagree. It's sometimes part of online discourse. But certainly not a good reason for attempting to silence someone.

Now, I happen to disagree with your banning, but clearly to trump authoritarian motives by private, non-corporate actors who are acting, possibly misguided, in the best interest of the long-term existence and membership of the forum,

I don't understand why you would think that someone who was unfairly banned from a forum would much care about the long-term wellbeing of that forum.

with asking PUBLIC tyranny to intervene on your behalf is a joke. You are asking the state to oppress in order to stop oppression.

There is some precident for that. I ask the state to interfere with the free speech of terrorists, when they are communicating their plans to blow me up. I ask the state to interfere with kiddy pornographers.

I would personally have tolerated some of what you did and then PMed you privately with warnings or used the delete button.

Glad that you are so tolerant...but again, I don't think I did anything wrong in the first place. But I agree that those who don't like my posts should be allowed to, indeed, encouraged to, ignore them.

By the by, the fact that others can go out of their way to ignore you does not justify you being a troll. QED.

I was not a troll.

By the way, Raymond: If the FBI or other agencies or groups do end up actually paying any attention, I doubt it but hey, they can do IP scans and investigation and find pretty much everything about every one of us out. Especially those with pictures posted. Further, the more someone posts, the more likely they will be able to find things out about them. Therefore, you are punishing people for cogent activity. The ironies just mount.

The ironies DO mount. If your FBI spends one dollar or one manhour investigating the members of the club, when they could instead be using that dollar and manhour to find missing children, serial killers, and terrorists, then it's proof that people get the governemnt that they deserve. There SHOULD be punishment for people who vote wrong.

"RC and online communities like it exist only because they fly under the radar of those busybodies who would like to see it censored. Just bringing it to the attention of these holier-than-thou pencil-pushers would likely be the beginning of the end of RC. (And while they look for ways to pull the plug, RC would be under such intense scrutiny, that NOBODY would feel free to speak their minds.)"

Which is precisely why your behavior is so noxious and against proper expression, far trumping your own illegitimate experience.

I'll admit, you are looking at a bigger picture than I am. You have that luxury. YOU had not been banned. You can fight for everyone's freedom, along with your own. Myself, I have to balance the value of my own freedom, against how much I value the freedom of a group of people who DON'T value my freedom. It's a tougher choice from where I sit.

A forum, which is a PRIVATE institution, has a certain degree of leeway to make standards of behavior and content and to ban those who do not comply.

Even private forums should operate fairly, or expect to suffer the consequences of being mis-administrated. GM makes a great SUV---much larger and more rugged than the foreign one I drive. But their cupholder won't hold a big-gulp. And mine, does.

"THIS is what was done to me. Is my nose for irony really that keen, that I'm the only one who can see it? I'm going to type this next bit really slowly: THEY prevented ME from posting, sooooooooooooo my only recourse was to say "Excuse me, but if you don't allow me to post, I'll do that which is in my power to show you how it feels to not be allowed to post." It's the only option I had. While I believe in free speech on the internet, forgive me if I don't shed a tear at the prospect of those who do NOT believe in free speech being censored. Those who CLAIM to believe in free speech, but mean free speech only for themselves and not others, are much less deserving of that right."

No, you had another option, Raymond. Be the bigger man and put it down. Make a new account and behave according to the rules of the forum.

I did behave according to the rules. Got banned anyway. Without warning.

NO ONE EVER DESERVES TO BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

I agree. But if some people have to be, let it first be those who do not agree with the above statement.

By your logic, Republicans and Nazis could be deprived of their rights to free speech and justice.

Well, they are more deserving of this deprivation than you or I.

"Finally, we're up to your first sentence. Objectivists and Liberertarians rarely see eye to eye (Objectivists claim that Libertarans "stole" the idea of freedom from them. ) And of course, neither Objectivists nor Libertarians suffer Fascists gladly. And Fascists hate everybody."

You're joking, right? Ayn Rand describes a system of market justice and personal rights that, whether or not an individual libertarian left or right disagrees with it (I sure as hell do), is fully in line with libertarianism.

Yes, but she defined it first. Before the Libertarian Party platform was written. And she felt strongly that Libertarians were jumping the gun by trying to teach politics before teaching Philosoply. (And election results seem to support her on this issue). And she has a right to have felt plagerized.

"I haven't threatened to shut RC down. Again, I don't know why you would endow me with such superpowers. I only threatened to bring RC to the attention of those type of people who like to shut these types of things down. And only that, IF I wasn't allowed to post there, just like everyone else who abides by the rules."

"I didn't shoot him, officer, I just hired someone else to do it!"

Or, more accurately, "I didn't shoot him officer. I just tried to tell him that there were alternatives to suicide...but he shot himself anyway."

Actually, Raymond, I would respect you MORE if you handled the problem yourself.

I am trying to handle the problem myself. I have an ongoing dialogue with one of the administrators, but he's currently out of town.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to put this much thought into your post. Good to see some thinkers out there, even if we disagree on a few minor points.

---Ray

This reminds me of when I took a trip to the zoo as a child and saw monkeys flinging crap at each other.

[innocent]

man what a load of crap this is!
get a life brek you sad tosser whoever you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i dont even care if i get a warning for that i wasted precious seconds of my life reading the first few lines then thought-wanker!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[innocent]

what is concerning tho is the person who took the time to read it all and reply to the individual pointsl. mmmm nothing better to do?

[Rogue]

Is anyone else worried the next reply will be a page long?

[Emily Johnson]

Hey Raymond,

Why no responses to posts 8 and 36?

Post 8: Shows these Boards are Private Property.

Post 36: Shows how carrying out your threat against RC would endanger free speech on the 'net.

[gal4]

Is he also enemy of free music?

JazzBand Ball


Liven things up here a little.

[Raymond Pist]

Originally Posted by Emily Johnson

Hey Raymond,

Why no responses to posts 8 and 36?

Post 8: Shows these Boards are Private Property.

"Property" is an elusive concept in cyberspace. Can you really "own" a message board, which is chock full of ideas that aren't your own? Indeed, some of the thought, ideas, and keystrokes on that board do in fact belong to ME.

Post 36: Shows how carrying out your threat against RC would endanger free speech on the 'net.

I disagree. I am IN FAVOR of free speech on the internet. Putting people on notice that if they go around censoring people, they themselves may be asked to suffer the same fate, should, in a rational world, have the net effect of INCREASING freedom of speech. Saying "If someone punches me in the nose, I'm going to hit them back" at first glance looks like the net effect is twice as much violence as taking the "turn the other cheek" approache to being punched in the nose. But in reality, the net effect is less violence, because someone who knows they themselves could be punched in the nose BECAUSE they punched someone in the nose, is enough to deter most rational people from initiating violence in the first place.

--Ray

[somedude]

Free speech! I'm more interested in free drinks!

[Emily Johnson]

Originally Posted by Raymond Pist

I disagree. I am IN FAVOR of free speech on the internet. Putting people on notice that if they go around censoring people, they themselves may be asked to suffer the same fate, should, in a rational world, have the net effect of INCREASING freedom of speech. Saying "If someone punches me in the nose, I'm going to hit them back" at first glance looks like the net effect is twice as much violence as taking the "turn the other cheek" approache to being punched in the nose. But in reality, the net effect is less violence, because someone who knows they themselves could be punched in the nose BECAUSE they punched someone in the nose, is enough to deter most rational people from initiating violence in the first place.

--Ray

You still did not respond to two very nice reasoned arguments.

[Grm]

Dear Ray, I can understand your anger for being banned for, as you saw it, speaking your mind. But threatening to report Rape Club is not the way to make your point. I'm sure you had people on RC who were in agreement with you[I hope]. If you have an issue its with the administrators and moderators, not with the members who make RC the community you were part of. It is these that will be affected by any action you might take.
I think this discussion has run its course now, so I am locking this thread.
Grm