Banned From RonPaulForums.com

Sola_Fide Sun, 01/24/2016 - 15:16
Forums: 
General Discussion

Hello all,

I was banned from RonPaulforums.com for suggesting that the moderation was being too accepting of racist white nationalists and other assorted Trump Pumpers.

White nationalism and protectionism are anti-liberty, but I guess they didn't want to hear that, which is sad.

Anyway, hello.

SF

What is the category of this post? (choose up to 2): 
Political News
Current News
60comments
Sola_Fide's picture
About the author
.
mothercirce's picture
mothercirce
01/24/2016 - 20:20

Why is everyone afraid of being a racist ? Isn't racism a belief ? Shouldn't we all be free to have our own thoughts and views ? Regardless, EVERYONE discriminates and is racist. Some more overtly than others I would say, but the first jackass that responds with something queer like, I don't see color or I am not racist, is full of shit. ( Blind individuals and those that see in grey or black in white, your response might be clever, but your still full of shit !) It's ok not to like people for whatever reason you like.

The reason race is such an issue here, is because of all the different colors and religions. Nobody is claiming that Mexico is racist. You know why. Because the overwhelming majority of individuals in Mexico are all the same color, religion, and they all speak the same crap. Non issue, non starter. 

LOOK, all this race crap is a distraction to keep all the sheep bickering and feuding with each other instead of everyone standing shoulder to shoulder pointing the finger at the real problem, THE DAMN GOVERNMENT.

.

Anne's picture
Anne
01/24/2016 - 23:17

Look.  I'm long over the whole "You're a Racist" attack from the left.  I heard it plenty in the last two elections.  I'm over it because I recognize it for what it is.  It is actually a distraction from real conversation meant to put you back on your heels and get you off your message.  While you are busy defending yourself against being called racist, no real conversation or argument can be made.  Left has been employing this for a good 8 years and it's lost its punch.

Everyone may discriminate in their choices but that is not the same thing as being racist.  You may think I'm queer or a jackass but I do see people as individuals.  How they behave, what they do, what they believe, what's their moral code.... That's what I look for and judge them on.

I'm never going to be racist because I know 100% that people from all nations and societies from the beginning of man have been guilty of great atrocities and evil.  All men regardless of color, language, or nation of origin have been responsible for massive genocide.  If you know your history, you know that there is not one nationality or race that has been immune to this uniquely despicable human condition.

Humans are capable of great evil, it's true.  No daylight of difference in any of our histories.  However, we are also all equally capable of great good, amazing selflessness and bravery.  That is also a human trait every nationality shares.  In the end, humans are humans.

So although I'm not color blind, I just don't care about it.  It means no more than the difference between the Star Bellied Sneetch and the Sneetch without.

You are absolutely free to believe what you like.  However, this is not a web site that celebrates collectivism.  We are not about grouping nationalities and races and any other group together and painting them with a broad flat brush. On the contrary, we are about individual rights and individual responsibility.

Fear of a racist label and running toward political correctness is not why I'm specifically telling you not to post racially charged pictures.  First of all its rude and insulting.  How do you expect to have a decent conversation when you are insulting people.  However, even more than that, it is not a liberty stance to lump people together and affix a collective guilt upon them as if they are all the same. 

Devolving into tribal instinct is not going to bring us closer to liberty.  It never has and it never will.

Maybe your intent was take the taboo out of it.  But, all it really does is piss people off and put them on the defensive.  Since when has anyone ever listened when they are busy defending themselves or walking away insulted?

It's not polite, it's not effective, and there's nothing liberty about it.

"Do not neglect your music, it will be a companion which will sweeten many hours of life to you."  Thomas Jefferson

mothercirce's picture
mothercirce
01/25/2016 - 14:01

How can we have a decent conversation if we are restricted with arbitrary rules of politeness ? No matter what I say or post, someone will always be offended, no matter how much I water down my belief. Having your opinion and expressing it non violently seems about as LIBERTY as it gets.

I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying, but all of us are NEVER going to agree on the definitions of all these words. I also want to point out that when you said that "you are never going to be  racist," is impossible. It is a natural survival instinct, from time to time to judge a person by the way they look, than to sit around and wait to get their moral character report. Regardless, how can you get a character report card that is honest from anyone ? Sometimes it is the polite. quiet one who locks up little children in their basement and makes hats out of their faces...

Anne, thank you for creating this place and giving us liberty oriented individuals a place to be once and again ! Now stop lying about how impossible it is for you to be a racist. I have found the most zealous racist to be the ones who deny it so fervently !

.

stm's picture
stm
01/25/2016 - 19:15

"that "you are never going to be  racist," is impossible. It is a natural survival instinct, from time to time to judge a person by the way they look,..."

That's not being racist. Holy cow! You've taken the word to a whole new meaning!

If I'm sitting across from a well dressed, neat, clean and polished person who's brandishing a poined finger gun at everyone around, you are not going to label me 'racists' for thinking that person has a problem.

This IS Anne's site and she can make determinations as she pleases, just as you have deterrmined that Anne is racist pffft Your hubris is stunning.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mothercirce's picture
mothercirce
01/25/2016 - 19:39

My intention was to label everyone a racist, myself included. I think anne is great ! My opinion thus far has been formed through the hard work (seemingly) she has put into this site, and also she seems like she allows people to speak freely. She might be a very bad person, but how can I really know ? Regardless, no one likes a brown nose. ( i mean that as a suck up, not individuals with a dark complexion...Sheesh )

.

mwstroberg's picture
mwstroberg
01/24/2016 - 22:48

what you say. However, the point I am trying to make with respect to liberty, is that racism is one of the driving forces behind statism, and you simply can't deny that.with a straight face. You claim to be opposed to the State, yet refuse to see the inherent statist biases in people who are explicitly racist. In a sense, everyone, with the exception of identical twins, and, perhaps someday, clones, is of a different race, because we all have a separate genetic code. And yes, we all discriminate based on those genetics. But that is not what is meant when I say "racism". What I mean, is taking what is a fallacious concept in the first place ("race"), and using this as a collectivist litmus test to determine what a person's mind, heart and soul is like. Just because I don't agree with that method of determination doesn't mean I would ever in your wildest dreams seek to use violence to change it. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I am politically tolerant of all points of view, but I do not accept all points of vew as valid or moral.

.

mwstroberg's picture
mwstroberg
01/24/2016 - 22:51

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory115.html

.

mothercirce's picture
mothercirce
01/24/2016 - 21:22

I think the bigger point is that the REAL fuel of statism is FEAR. Whether it is driven by race, class, income, terror, religion, ideolgy, guns, politics, whatever... The fear is the disease, the race bait, the terrorist, the illegals, spores in the hot pockets is the symptom.

There can not be true liberty while government exist. I know that line will cause some sharts, but then again the way we define ALL of these terms is different, so, it is all mental masturbation anyway.

Stop supporting all the politicians, stop supporting government. Democracy, socialisim and communism all have one thing in common. Its all about collectivisim. It's all about putting the needs of the group over the rights of the individual. Yes, we are supposed to be a constitutional republic, but then we are dealing with an elite group that dictates how much property I may or may not keep. (hooray !) In addition, this constitutional republic can kill any of us for treason. (super, the monster I had no part in creating has an inherit right to kill me, but not vice versa ? ) Keep flying those flags, and regurgitating your pledges to the "republic."  Hell, no one even knows what the real American flag looks like.

It does not matter, none of it. We have a choice. We can accept our slavery and live our lives cowardly on our knees, or reject our slavery and allow the fear to dissolve. We can't have it both ways. Lots of super smart people like to think that they can, but THEY CAN NOT ! So, just how important is liberty to each individual ? I am a coward, because I still pay the kings tribute every year. I also have a drivers license, and that also makes me a coward slave. So how bad do I want liberty ? Am I willing to stand up to tyranny while it has me surrounded with a dozen rifles aimed at me ? It might be easier if there were more willing to stand up in unison. Regardless, I like to think that I am being honest and not lying to myself about the situation. One more note, this is all my opinion and belief, so it might not be the truth but it is my truth.

 

.

stm's picture
stm
01/25/2016 - 09:34

Anne can correct me, but I don't think this is an anarchist site. If this site is to help people to open up to libertarian ideology and nudge them towards restoring liberty, throwing them to the anarchist wolves would probably put them off.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
mwstroberg
01/25/2016 - 17:50

Anarchists are included as a part of that. I would feel very ill-at-ease here if they did not welcome anarchists, and that's not only because I am an anarchist, as I would feel very ill-at-ease here if they did not welcome minarchists too. Mothercirce's problem is not anarchism, it is the mistaken belief that he (or she, I don't really know which it is) can deliberately offend people and not face any consequences.

"throwing them to the anarchist wolves" - That offends me, as it assumes that anarchists are, as a group, some type of predatory animals with no regard to ethics and morals. Most anarchists are anarchists primarily for moral reasons, because they do not believe in the initiation of violence and believe that, to follow that consistently, one can not endorse the existence of the State. Such a profound self restraint with regard to the use of violence is the mark of a highly moral person, not a savage beast.

Some anarchists, some atheists, and even some Christians get wrapped up in the symbolism of their beliefs in liberty, of whatever kind, and take on an attitude of "I can do anything," as if actions no longer have consequences.

.

stm's picture
stm
01/25/2016 - 18:56

and someone else were downvoted on Pen's open border post by whom? I'm not saying all open border proponents are anarchists, but all anarchists are pro open borders. I didn't down vote any of your posts there because in my mind you and I are having a discussion - speak your mind instead of hiding behind an anonymous down vote, which is something I appreciate you don't do. A silent down vote is an act of aggression; downvoting itself is an act of aggression which, admittedly, I sometimes cave in to and do, but never without comment.

There has never been a successful, sustained anarchist community - unless you consider those who follow a particular faith anarchistic - but they act under the rules of their faith and therefore have a Lord and Master of some kind over them so how that can be considereded anarchy...

And if you can be offended by an opinion... LOL Let's be honest; I am nothing to you. You have been gnawing at my heels since the DP days - don't think I don't remember. Our banter only helps me solidify my perpesctive and refine my argument, yet it causes you offense. Funny that.

You may believe that you are morally superior to me, but all I see is someone foaming at the mouth trying to convince me of his moral superiority. It's pure  fantasy to believe such things because no one can ever be superior to me, nor can I be superior to anyone else - no one is superior to anyone. You're the one who believes such things, believes you've taken some higher road from where you can look down on everyone who doesn't walk in your step.

I'll keep walking in my shoes, thank you very much.

Perhaps you should chew on that for a bit.

 

 

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

mwstroberg's picture
mwstroberg
01/25/2016 - 21:24

are you getting that from? And you are "something" to me. I enjoy our conversations and don't feel good when you tar all anarchists (which includes me) as some kind of savage animals.

I believe anarchism to be morally superior to minarchism. But it's quite a stretch to say that I believe myself morally superior to you. My own personal belief is that, by the standard Jesus set, that we are all equal morally, including serial killers. And I am not "foaming at the mouth,' I am passionate about justice, that's different. It may appear that I am looking down on you, but I am not, I am looking down  on your beliefs. There are some political beliefs I find quite offensive, especially when  they are cloaked in pseudo-libertarian arguments, but are obviously an infringement on political and economic liberty when analyzed logically.

.

HVACTech's picture
HVACTech
01/25/2016 - 22:21

oh? now that right there is funny!.. on the basis of... what?  heh.

https://youtu.be/qVTA5eMdpFs

 

.

mothercirce's picture
mothercirce
01/25/2016 - 19:32

Now that quote is just full of sissy nonsense ! You are saying that an opinion, that has manifested itself anonymously, online, with the click of a button is an act of aggression ? What if the individual gave you a down vote in their mind but did not physically click the button ? Would that also constitute an act of aggression ? Logic says that it does and does not. Seems that the individual is choosing what gets them all hot and bothered and what does not.

So what does up voting an individual mean ? what kind of "ACT" is that ? Furthermore, do you support being able to only up vote people, or should the owners of this private property simply do away with the whole system. I personally think the whole up vote down vote system is more of a popularity contest type of deal, but it does add an extra dimension of DRAMA to the mix. Then again, you could simply show your up vote or down vote by typing the words in a reply as well. IS THAT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION ? For the record, I have not down voted your post, but i disagree with your post and I am physically typing, I DOWN VOTE YOUR RESPONSE. Is my opinion shared non violently and with no intention of a threat an act of aggression ? Only you can decide ! You have decided ! And we all seem to have our different aggressive opinions about it ! Nothing changed, nothing solved, and even if the outcome you wanted was somehow manifested, it would only be creating an issue for some other offended individual. 

.

HVACTech's picture
HVACTech
01/25/2016 - 20:56

you know exactly how I feel about your ilk!  :)

.

TheTaoistTroll's picture
TheTaoistTroll
01/25/2016 - 20:43

I almost never up-vote or down-vote. I detest the system. Always have and always will.  However, whenever I come across a post or comment that decrys and complains about being down-voted and makes a big deal out of it.  Guess what? -1

Grow up.

Those who are; are those whom are not.

stm's picture
stm
01/25/2016 - 20:22

There's enough drama out there without adding contentiousness to the mix here.

I explained this in Anne's 'website' post. Upvoting means you agree with the sentiment of the comment so unless you want to add to it there's no reason to add anything further. Downvoting means you disagree, but how can the person downvoted know why or where the disagreement is if there is no comment made? If this place is to also be about an exchange of ideas, how can opposing viewpoints be made if the person opposing never makes their case? The downvoter could just be downvoting b/c s/he doesn't like you on some personal level. I see no reason to downvote your comment here because you're making enquires.

I see no reason for you to yell at me.

But if you're here to spread drama and not promote liberty, maybe you're in the wrong place.

 

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

HVACTech's picture
HVACTech
01/25/2016 - 18:50

this is VERY clearly a MinArchist document. Limited Government is NOT the absence of a state is it?

the "Original Intent" was Liberty. this explains why the original document did NOT pertain to the people.  the intent was to limit the powers of the existing "states".  it did not create the states and it was NOT to be a social contract.

it was structured to provide and promote maximum "Anarchy" at the local level. Anarchy cannot stand alone. history has proven this time and time again. Anarchy, like Liberty, needs to be defended. constantly.

"states" spontaneously propagate themselves. Anarchy cannot stop this Natural phenomenon. our founders understood this.  the "Original Intent" therefore, was to use a "state" ( Federation) to limit the "states"  

 I do NOT mind if you, or anyone else intentionally attacks our Constitution. however, if you claim to be an "Anti-Federalist" and  and do not know what a Federation is...  we will not get along. :)

there were a LOT of very smart people in the early days of both RPF's and the DP. I am cautiously optimistic that C2P can bring them back. Anarchists ran them off.

.

stm's picture
stm
01/25/2016 - 19:35

that the anarchists were one of the reasons why he hated going to PL.

Like you I support a Constitution which limits what government can do, secures the liberties of the people and would love it if the politicians adhered to it. Though I must confess, I favor the so-called Anti-Federalist arguments during the debates for ratification over those of the Federalists.... I really have a problem with Hamilton! And Benjamin Rush was for abolishing the States and having one, national government - an idea I reject. Madison initially sought a national government so it was fortunate that he was friends with Jefferson who was able to offer reasonable arguments against such a thing.

Laugh. It makes you feel good.

HVACTech's picture
HVACTech
01/25/2016 - 21:25

." I really have a problem with Hamilton! And Benjamin Rush was for abolishing the States and having one, national government - an idea I reject."

 

when did this occur? before 1787?

I really have a problem with Hamilton! And Benjamin Rush was for abolishing the States and having one, national government - an idea I reject. - See more at: http://www.acalltopaul.com/node/880?page=1#comment-4094

.

Pages

Navigation

User login

User menu

Poll

Will Biden still be president by the end of September?
Yes
50%
No
50%
Total votes: 8

Recent comments

Support The Site