Wait, Socialist RifleMAN???

Recently a couple of us founders of this forum have been explicitly accused of outright sexism. The two foundations for this claim is the name of the forum and that we reacted in a hostile manner to an Obama supporter who also happens to be a woman.

First, the name. This forum is called Socialist Rifleman because that’s the name of the blog on blogger that comedian runs. It’s had that name for quite a while. It's a take on the NRA's magazine "American Rifleman". I don't care what this is named. If it wouldn't jack up the links that are out there now (and it would) I'd be fine with changing the name to something like "Socialists for the Second Amendment", "Socialist Gun Talk", or anything. I really don't care. Except insofar as I don't want to change it now because I don't want to give in to bullies. So instead, to make clear that female comrades are welcome here, I've changed the top pic, from Malcolm X with an M1, to a heroic comrade fighter who is also a woman, from Anarchist Spain.

Incidentally, one of the mods on the forum that many of us came from complained that Gendo called her a Marxist. And that nobody jumped on him for that, when she doesn't like being called a Marxist. This from the person who called me a true believer and "crusader". Yeah, pagans love being told that they're the pagan-murdering militant Christians. I was also called, without any comment or sanction by the moderators there, an anarchist fanboi. This would seem to be a gay slur, but it's okay because the person making it is an authoritarian Democrat and pro-capitalist. Instead the moderator attacked me for saying

When I post something particularly damning of the Administration on facebook, and that's a frequent occurrence, Gendo usually says I should post it here. I don't, because I've realized that people so motivated by fear and so easily controlled by the kabuki theater will never change their minds through anything I'd say.

Boy, that's some inflammatory speech there. Good thing the mod stepped in to pull that back, right? Of course, I was also called an arrogant prick and a Puritopian, again without any comment or complaint from the moderators.

In the face of this ridiculous and imbalanced moderation, intended to fiercely defend and maintain the status quo, I decided I wasn't going to waste my time with them any more and just stopped posting there. Then others made me realize that there's probably a lot of other people alienated by the moderation and the statist community at this other forum, and so we started our own forum.

When a couple of the same people who'd been jerks over there decided to show up over here (and they're still trying to use it as a way to silence dissenters there), I reacted with frank hostility. I still have that hostility. I don't like them. I don't trust them. This has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation, and everything to do with political and economic orientation. As they've thoroughly pissed up their own pool, I don't want them coming over here to piss up ours.

The moderation staff there has frankly gotten ridiculous, and it's a shame because I used to respect them. They're accusing Gendo now of being a racist because he doesn't support Obama. Really. Both of us put a lot of time and energy into defending Obama from racists, calling them on their racism and criticizing them for not finding legitimate reasons to criticize Obama. There's a lot of those reasons. No shortage at all.

I think that comedian is right, the contradictions of trying to be a lower-left quadrant leftist and supporting the upper-right quadrant Obama is causing some to become real defensive. And when you can't defend the indefensible, you have to go on the attack, whether there is any shred of legitimacy to those attacks or not.

I don't want anything to do with people like that. I don't have the energy for that anymore. So anyone like that who shows up here to shill for their imperialist candidate is going to be met, from me at least, with some very sharp words and pointed posts. And that's going to be true no matter their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Additionally, I welcome all comrades, no matter their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

Solidarity.

" You are a proof of something too round. I would be angry with you if time were convienient."- King Harry, Henry V.

The upcoming election sloganeering and fearmongering are beginning to take their toll. People who were leftist in their political orientation and very critical of the president are now, if not defending him, are at least hostile to those who are.
The effect of this Lesser Evilist campaign reminds me of a softcore version of the Stalinist Purge in Spain of the anarchists and independent Marxist POUM. " Win the war first, then carry out the Revolution" was their slogan. The fact that the war was the revolution did not occur to them. By avoiding a radical restructuring of society, the Spanish Communists hoped to please their liberal bourgeoise backers, who were in turn beholden to foreign corporate interests. In short, the Stalinists put the revolution on hold- indefinitely.
Now in the U.S.A. it is the same old shit, albeit without the bloodshed. Every four years the progressive community gets whipped up into a frenzy of fear, as the lords of the Democratic Leadership Council goes to work convincing them that if the GOP candidate is elected, then Satan incarnate will reign over the Earth. Progressives begin to say some very stupid shit, like " He can't get elected if he runs as a liberal" or " We need to put off any kind of change for now- at least until he is re- elected." Never noticing, of course, that their candidate begins to run further to the left during an election year.
Then when their candidate is re- elected, he can't do anything but the mildest of reforms because he does not want to ruin the chances of the Democrat that runs after he leaves office. " Change is incremental" is a favorite phrase of these compromised progressives. Ignoring the fact that their increments of change are erased as soon as the competition assumes ( inevitably ) power again.
If they had read the history of the last 500 years, then they would know that change, revolutionary change (the only kind that has permanance ) happens in great upheavals and that entire societies are turned upside down and torn to pieces before the process is through. Change is a messy, chaotic, and often violent affair- hence the description of it has become known as revolution. You don't make change, fundamental change, with legislative half- steps and reassuring speeches.
Whew. Rant over.

So the evils of incrementalism and the fact that someone made an accusation of sexism (who presumably is an incrementalist) and changing links being inconvenient amount to an analysis of the RifleMAN issue?

I would think there might be even a whiff of an attempt to tease out the issue of the name, given that this forum aims to represent something other than excuses for the status quo.

I know I am disliked here, but doubt that it has anything to do with my sex or my sexuality. I also get the positive features of the name, especially the link to comedian's blog (which is a distinctly different situation when the name is only representing him). Dismissing the issue because MAN is universal and "look there's a picture of a chick on the site now" and "change is hard" is some pretty weak reasoning for socialists. Am I wrong to expect a higher level of discourse from people who espouse a politic based in critical analysis?

I know that if we changed the name, there'd be something else latched onto as proof of how we're all horrible people. Maybe our opposition to Obama makes us both sexist and racist; that charge has certainly been made, and with some frequency. Maybe the struggles of the female soldiers during the Spanish Civil War makes us sexist. People looking for a reason to attack us will always find one, and I don't think that conforming to their whims is a productive goal.

Political correctness has always struck me as an attempt to change the inequality in the world by simply talking about it differently, as if calling a sheep a cow will change its fundamental properties. The problem with this is that people think that by changing the acceptable words one can use, they're changing the way people think, and making actual progress. When really, nothing changes except the list of acceptable words.

For me, I prefer acta, non verba, actions and not words.

Fahrenheit 451 will change your view on political correctness. Among other things.

Progurt wrote:I know that if we changed the name, there'd be something else latched onto as proof of how we're all horrible people.

Progurt, I agree with you on this.

At the same time, "man" immediately suggests that the forum is for males. Unfortunately, the historical reasons for it being so will be lost to just about anyone who comes across the forum. (Heck, I did not know.) And the play on American Rifleman may also not come to mind to everyone, especially those who are new to guns or are not involved with the NRA substantially. Given that, again unfortunately, it is easier to judge a book by its cover than take the time to read it, I can't help thinking that "rifleman" is an obstacle.

For the record, I would not suggest dropping "socialist" from the name because someone is unhappy with it. Socialism is central to this site.

Progurt wrote:I know that if we changed the name, there'd be something else latched onto as proof of how we're all horrible people. Maybe our opposition to Obama makes us both sexist and racist; that charge has certainly been made, and with some frequency. Maybe the struggles of the female soldiers during the Spanish Civil War makes us sexist. People looking for a reason to attack us will always find one, and I don't think that conforming to their whims is a productive goal.

Political correctness has always struck me as an attempt to change the inequality in the world by simply talking about it differently, as if calling a sheep a cow will change its fundamental properties. The problem with this is that people think that by changing the acceptable words one can use, they're changing the way people think, and making actual progress. When really, nothing changes except the list of acceptable words.

For me, I prefer acta, non verba, actions and not words.

That's probably not a great strategy for expanding the influence of your viewpoint.

Neither is giving people who don't like you everything they say you should give them every time they say you should. If I wanted to give my political opponents everything they want whenever they say to, I'd still be a Democrat.

I'm not going to make this change because I don't agree with it. If one of the other administrators wants to do it, they're welcome to do it. I'm not the only admin here. I didn't come up with the original name, I don't need to come up with another. It'll be on them to redistribute the updated name and address, and to deal with the next imagined slight to political correctness we're expected to bend over backwards to appease. Comedian's put an olive branch out to the LGC already and they spit in his face, if he wants to keep it up that's his decision.

As for me, I had enough double standards and selective moderation at the last place, I'm not going to bow down to it here.

I'm not talking about LGC. I'm talking about other socialists who might think your indignance about politically correct language is a sign that they aren't welcome. You shouldn't care what your "enemies" think, but you might want to consider what those on your side might think of you.

I'm leaving it up to one of the other admins.

For these other socialists who'd be offended by my personal position on political correctness, I'd explain it to them the same way. Political correctness is used as a poor substitute for actual progress. This has certainly been the case in the bourgeoisie liberal movements and the Democratic Party.

Fahrenheit 451, just sayin....

Might also point them to this: A Leftist Critique of Political Correctness

Progurt wrote:Might also point them to this: A Leftist Critique of Political Correctness

Yeah. Sounds like he's on my side of this argument.

Fukshot wrote:

Progurt wrote:Might also point them to this: A Leftist Critique of Political Correctness

Yeah. Sounds like he's on my side of this argument.

Did you read it?

There's also a political danger when we allow institutions to be the arbiters of bigotry. If you can label people racist, or anti-gay, or sexist, or whatever, you have a mechanism by which you can enlist society in supporting your blacklisting, censorship, or other authoritarian act. This can be used as a back door to oppressing people who say other inconvenient things -- such as politically subversive, seditious, or disruptive things.

This is why Keith Preston calls political correctness "totalitarian humanism": it is cultural progressivism pressed into the service of the ruling class's interests. It's why the U.S. can justify imperial expeditions as humanitarian interventions and get away with it. It's why things like greenwashing and token minorities on corporate boards are attempted and work so often. It's why we get our asses beat on the street when we protest and the cops can claim it was for our own safety. It's why kids are suspended from school for merely drawing a picture of a gun. Political correctness co-opts radical change to prop up and empower conservative institutions who only understand policy.

I believe what we call "political correctness" results from the attempts of the institutions that so dominate our society to acknowledge changing social norms by implementing kneejerk, often draconian policies. These policies rarely in and of themselves solve the underlying problem. However, they do preserve the institution's legitimacy and integrity, and this is their purpose.

In addition to propping up unegalitarian institutions, there is another, perhaps worse aspect of political correctness: it subverts the narrative of the social change in question. When the institutions of society proclaim a particular policy or law or rule as a response to this change, people tend to consider the matter settled. Changing the law, such as passing the Civil Rights Act, becomes the whole point of the struggle instead of (at best) one side-effect of the people's rising up or (at worst) a way to pacify the people. These responses tend to bookend, rather than promote, the momentum for social change and make us more dependent on the mediation of elites rather than seeing their intrusion as part of the problem.

Progurt wrote:Comedian's put an olive branch out to the LGC already and they spit in his face, if he wants to keep it up that's his decision.

?
I haven't seen that...can you enlighten me? Who?? When?

I am as much the LGC as anyone and have welcomed the arrival of the Socialist Rifleman enthusiastically, both in the forum and privately amongst the moderators.

I have absolutely no issue with the name of this forum; I neither view it as sexist or offensive to my innocent sensibilities. I immediately interpreted it as a euphemism for my middle finger flying in the face of LaPerrier and his band of corrupt clowns...I like it.

rolandson wrote:

Progurt wrote:Comedian's put an olive branch out to the LGC already and they spit in his face, if he wants to keep it up that's his decision.

?
I haven't seen that...can you enlighten me? Who?? When?

G&G, here and here.

There's a number of other posters and moderators there, gendo can give you details (since it's been directed at him and not at me, as I haven't posted there in some time and don't intend to again), who've tried to use the existence of this forum as a way to silence people there they don't like.

I'd like to suggest that one, two, or half a dozen is not representative of the LGC. I am one of the "they" and I did not spit anything at anyone.

I'm not here to defend anybody. I am here in support of giving a greater voice to people who do not accept the lock step mob that the NRA and its supporters appear to be. I would like to point out however, that a far greater number of LGC forum participants have been welcoming and genuinely pleased and supportive of this venture.

I view this forum as an equal, and an asset. Keep the name; it's worthy.

rolandson wrote:I'd like to suggest that one, two, or half a dozen is not representative of the LGC.

That is true, you are correct.

rolandson wrote:I view this forum as an equal, and an asset. Keep the name; it's worthy.

That's my opinion and preference as well.

I did get into it with G & G, with FS giving a less hostile version of what she was trying to say, and maybe there were a couple of others who took some shots that I missed, but most of the posts on that LGC thread were supportive or offered constructive criticism.
Whatever your feelings toward FS the fact remains that since she opened the debate on this and other subjects activity on this site has increased one hundred fold. Controversy should be encouraged - it makes for interesting reading. These arguments remind me a lot of a socialist meeting, particularly one in which different ideologies are represented. Reds tend to be passionate people and the arguments tend towards hysterics and grandstanding. But some kind of consensus is usually hammered out. Usually one that is not acceptable to everyone but one that is democratically decided upon.
Hell, you can make accusations of sexism, racism, accomocation with the ruling class all you want. Great, more sparks from the fireworks. But do not descend to personal insults ( which thankfully has not happened yet ). If you get to the point where you can't stand to read someone else's posts, then ignore them ( I think we have an ignore feature somewhere around here ).
FS is arguing with some people but she is not pissing all over socialism. If someone from the LGC wants to join for the sole purpose of doing that, then it's ban city. So far everyone is arguing fiercely, sometimes it gets a little heated, but so far I have not seen the kind of disrespect I saw in some ( rare ) cases over at the LGC. So let's stick to that.
For now we keep the name and the pic for awhile. After a debate, we will decide.

comedian wrote:Whatever your feelings toward FS the fact remains that since she opened the debate on this and other subjects activity on this site has increased one hundred fold.

The fact that, after an initial hiccup, she's stuck around to duke it out has improved my opinion significantly.

comedian wrote:Controversy should be encouraged - it makes for interesting reading. These arguments remind me a lot of a socialist meeting, particularly one in which different ideologies are represented. Reds tend to be passionate people and the arguments tend towards hysterics and grandstanding. But some kind of consensus is usually hammered out. Usually one that is not acceptable to everyone but one that is democratically decided upon.

I love productive conflict. One of the main reasons I'm not posting anymore at the LGC is that conflict there was no longer productive.

comedian wrote:For now we keep the name and the pic for awhile. After a debate, we will decide.

At some point in the future we may be moving off this shit-tastic free forum site (I never expected us to get so many member, 15 already and I don't think it's even been a month) and onto our own website. That will be an excellent time to revisit the issue of a name change... not least because I personally am not a big fan of Socialist Rifleman

I think when we get to that point, we'll hold a contest of some sort with nominations and voting. Get some user participation.

Personally, I think you should remove the word Rifle from the title. I just don't like it....

I can see how people who have been the object of oppression and have the deck stacked against them would react in a way. I wouldn't necessarily call it PC, especially since using that terminology now is akin to calling someone "thin skinned" or "overly sensitive". I am an American of Mexican heritage and I have been discriminated against, both overtly and in subtle ways because of my appearance and surname. I tend to be sensitive to things that smack of that kind of activity, although I tend to try reality checking often so as to not react at things constantly.

I admit that I did not read the critique entirely so I may be stating something that was addressed... I can see how the "elites" could bastardize and use "PC" as a concept to solidify their privilege. They would used ANYthing to do that.

Frankly, I'm tired of "feminists" at this point as I find that most of them aren't and I'm tired of their whining. RifleMAN? Why not RiflePERSON? Shut the fuck up, that's as stupid as "Herstory" and the kind of shit which makes progress more difficult and people roll their eyes at you. Typical fucking man-hating Feminazi.

Full disclosure: Kinda biased on this point as I'm currently divorcing my own man-hating feminazi.

MilSpecGI wrote:Frankly, I'm tired of "feminists" at this point as I find that most of them aren't and I'm tired of their whining. RifleMAN? Why not RiflePERSON? Shut the fuck up, that's as stupid as "Herstory" and the kind of shit which makes progress more difficult and people roll their eyes at you. Typical fucking man-hating Feminazi.
Full disclosure: Kinda biased on this point as I'm currently divorcing my own man-hating feminazi.

Comrade, I understand your frustration over identity politics.
Believe me, I really do.
God knows that I dig your posts and that one Red who has a real job, like soldiering, is worth 100 campus commies, but I'm going to whip out the censor's pen if you continue to personally insult fellow members. I can put up with a comrade saying that he/ she thinks another person's opinion is absolute shit, but not personal attacks.
Sorry about the divorce. I hope you get stateside soon.

MilSpecGI wrote:(self-indulgent ignorant ass whining)

I don't hate men, but with your help I could learn to.

I'm dealing with it, FS.
You guys can flame each other all day long, but no insults.
If we go there, then I will start editing posts.