Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Subhaditya wrote:[Tim I have heard many people like you… in the name of respecting women's honour you enslave them…. in the name of batting for the retards you keep them castrated… Here I am batting for better sex lives for them and look at you… you are diverting attention to terminologies. So what is the earth shattering difference between the term intellectual disability and retard both qualify a person as intellectually inferior to the average person in some way or you would call them 'normal' not use special terms to describe them.You know all that matters is if you actually care for them or not, thats far more important than stupid terminologies.
To deal on a personal level with the ridiculous insults you throw at me. I have spent the last 35 years of my working life as a Social Worker. A good proportion of that time has been spent working to protect and support people with Intellectual disabilities and working to actually enhance the lives of people who have intellectual disabilities. As opposed to merely talking shite on a website (battling for a better sex life my arse).As part of that work I have been directly involved with assisting people with intellectual disabilties gain their freedom from the Long Stay institutions which they have been incarcerated in, many for a large proportion of their lives. I have indeed actually come across individuals who have been castrated, women who have been sterilised, individuals who have had their teeth removed, denied the right to have intimate relationships by arbitrary hospital rules, been forced to live in squalid crowded hospital wards, etc. etc. All carried out by people who like you claim to have "their best interests at heart.I have spent much of that time batting with people who have attitudes like you, people who view people who have those disabilities as, to quote you "them" not as part of us. The "earth shattering difference between" using the term people with an intellectual disability" and "the retards" as you so ignorantly put it is that people with an intellectual disability, expressed through groups like the People First movement" have strongly lobbied that they find the term "retard" insulting and pejorative.The use of a term like "the retards" is not only insulting, it is also part of a process of dehumanization. If we dehumanise people we can do what we want to them, they are not humans any more. If we call them retards it makes it easier when we lock them up in institutions, take their freedom and choice away from them, they are inferior, we can do what we want. The process of dehumanizing groups of individuals has a log and sad history, you are part of the process of dehumanizing a group of people who you wish to label as retards, you should hang your head in shame.This leads me to the question, why, if a group of people find a term insulting, why would you as an individual insist on continuing to use that term?,Perhaps it is because, despite your protests of liberation, actually don't think that people with intellectual disabilities are capable of making such a distinction for themselves, that the "retards" you refer to are not capable of self advocacy, they need to be liberated by leaders like you.Well I have got some news for you, not only are people with intellectual disabilities advocating for themselves, lots of people with intellectual disabilities are advocating how they will develop their own loving and caring, adult relationships. I have come across many people with intellectual disabilities who have very active and varied sex lives. Perhaps you find that hard to believe, that people who by your own words you describe as inferior are actually managing to develop their own sex lives, without the support of patronising, creepy individuals like yourself. Isn't that ironic, the people you deride as inferior, are getting plenty of it, but judging from your comments here, you are clearly not getting any. To find the answer to why that is, perhaps you could look in the mirror and ask yourself, what would you rather by a "retard" or a virgin!
moderator1 wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.That particular option was considered and rejected when the forum moderation was reviewed 3 years ago.
Surely we of all people shouldn't be arguing that proposals to change systems should be rejected on the basis of "we thought about that three years ago and decided against it". At the last election the electorate rejected the idea of Socialism, are we saying that that proposal should never be looked at again?
Subhaditya wrote:Matt wrote:I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.Lol, I just realized this will be one of the unpleasant tasks … to ensure everyone gets enough pleasant sex… because well there are always many who are arent getting any sex thats worth calling it sex… money and power can go a long way in addressing that which of course only a few will have enough of… and money wont exist in socialistic society… and yet socialism isnt complete if your critical needs arent met through cooperation… So I suppose to meet peoples sexual needs in a socialist society without money…. there will be the unpleasant task of giving sex to those with whom no one they are attracted to wants to have sex with… and it cant be done by those they are not feeling attracted to…. or we can pair up 2 guys not getting any and make them ejaculate each other which is probably not going to meet these two guys sexual needs especially if they are attracted to women.So I guess for socialism to deliver on its promise of 'to each according to their needs from each according to their ability', to the list of unpleasant tasks will need to be added the unpleasant and voluntary task of giving 'pleasant sex' to those who arent managing it on their own. If I can get any cruder it would be giving 'pleasant sex' to the uglies and retards of the world who arent managing any on their own.I guess it would be managed the same way as the other unpleasant tasks that need to be done to meet peoples needs.
The use of the term "retards' is completely unacceptable on a Socialist Forum and is highly insulting and pejorative to people with an Intellectual Disability.You appear not only to wish to insult women but also appear to wish to insult other groups of people who do not meet your Benchmark of acceptability.Can I suggest you go off and educate yourself on the societal position of people with intellectual disability and the struggles that have faced to overcome dehumanising attitudes like yours. You appear to want to join in the societal devaluation of people with intellectual disabilities. Can I suggest that instead of giving vent to your bizarre sexual fantasies you take the time to find out about the struggles of other workers and their families,
steve colborn wrote:I like this, I really like this! Where do I send my order and the money? Well done, Steve Colborn.if the fashionistas of Seaham Harbour are wearing these this season, then they'll be the talk of the Paris catwalks, I'd better get one too, don't want it said that Newcastle lags behind Sunderland in the fashion stakes.
moderator2 wrote:Tim, the protocols on etiquette between members was laid down by conference which as you are well aware of, supersedes the guide-lines, the rules and the moderators authority…and you can check which conference resolutions which mandates a certain amount of civility and respect between members by going to Spintcom files and searching out the year yourself. Once more, why do you not read what Mod2 actually responded when the same point was raised earlier. I was replying to Cde. Mcolme query about what he considered was a more lenient treatment of LBird and the reply was not accusing Cde Maratty of the same breach but an explanation to clarify for Cde. Mcolme that because of their different status, LBird can be more accusatory in his posts..again within reason. Yes, we do hold members to a higher standard than non-members…Tough being an SPGBer, isn't it?Let it be clear what this moderator is saying and has said.I intend where possible to moderate with a lighter touch that what might have been the previous case. I'm not pointing the finger but simply saying my attitude and approach is my own. This means that i may well hold a different position from fellow moderators. I am one of three. I can be out-voted. I am also a democrat and accept decisions that go against my own view. Or would you like it if three individual moderators kept making individual idiosyncratic but conflicting decisions and kept reversing actions back and forth?If Mod1 infringed the rules as you claim by saying you were anti-democratic (again, i am not going to track back into history for the message) then banning would not have been the immediate response but a warning would have been issued. Has he repeated the claim? If not, then, we can assume he has understood he had gone further than he should have. I'm not going to return to the relevant messages for the context but let us be clear, many members in the history of the Party have accused others of not acting democratically and, in itself, does not warrant to be considered as questioning the member's socialist credentials and qualifications to be a member of the Party. Moderators have often been accused ourselves of behaving anti-democratically and, again depending upon what context, it can be considered as fair and acceptable comment. At other times, it can be seen as an unjustifiable slur that will evoke an official response. It appears to me, Tim, that you are personally very concerned from the number of times you have posted about the moderation process and its implementation by ourselves. Cde. Maratty will vouch that i frequently in the now distant past when difficulties were arising and evolving suggested he puts himself forward as a moderator and shoulder some of the responsibility of maintaining some order on the forum. I now suggest the very same to you. If you feel you can bring your own expertise and knowledge to the task then come aboard.But if you believe that constantly highlighting what you perceive as the failings of fellow members and comrades, all volunteers for what i think many would see as an unenviable party position, is constructive contributions to the Party organisation, so be it. We, the moderators, will continue to defend ourselves and our actions when we think we are in the right and beg forgiveness if we tresspass and transgress.with reference to the conference motion which I think you are alluding to, my recollection of this motion (passed some time in the mid 80s if I remember correctly) stated that a speaker AT CONFERENCE OR ADM who questioned the socialist integrity of another speaker AT THAT CONFERENCE OR ADM, would be ruled out of order.That resolution clearly applied to speakers at conference or ADM, not this forum, I really feel you are grasping at straws now to further justify the indefinite banning of Cde Marratty.Even if I was to accept (which I don't) that the spirit of that resolution should be applied to this forum, there is a world of difference between ruling a part of a contribution out of order, or even ruling a speaker out of order, and imposing an indefinite ban. Would it be acceptable to impose an indefinite ban on a member from speaking at conference or at a branch meeting because they had made a comment that was out of order? If such an action has ever been taken, I would be very grateful if you could give me details. Also if you are going to make questionable use of this motion at conference to justify the ban, at least have the good grace to fit your actions in with the actions recommended in the motion.You then go on to say that based on this flawed reasoning, that as L Bird is a non member he can "be more accusatory in his posts". I ask again, where in the forum rules, the party rules or in the terms of reference for moderators is this stated, and please do not quote conference resolutions which clearly do not apply to this situation.You then go on to state that you will moderate with a lighter touch, and that you may not take the same view as other moderators, yet I have asked in PMs for information about which way the Mods voted on the continuation of the ban on Cde Marratty, I was told that it was not relevant which way individual Mods voted. I would argue in a democratic party, where all officials of the party are accountable, that knowledge of the voting pattern of the individual members is essential in order to maintain democratic accountability. Would you not agree?Just to clarify I am politically concerned, rather than personally concerned, with regards to this issue. If it was L Bird who was being banned, I hope (despite our various bouts of handbags at dawn) that I would be raising the same issues.With regards to your comment on Mod 1 calling me anti democratic. Just to be clear, I have no wish for Mod 1 to be banned, he explained that he took my comment out of context and withdrew it, I'm more than happy with that and I have absolutely no animosity toward Brian, in fact I am greatly looking forward to seeing him again at ADM and maybe sinking a few jars with him. Vin described a member as a little Hitler, which was a very unpleasant thing to say, Vin apologised and withdrew the comment, same as Brian. Surely that should be the end of the matter.My own view of moderation is that we should moderate the comment, not the commentator. Remove comments if they are inappropriate or break the rules by all means, but do not stop the poster posting other comments, which don't break the rules. It seems to me that we are refusing to give Cde Marratty the chance to say something constructive and appropriate, because he has said things that are inappropriate. Or to put it another way, we are banning him from saying something sensible because he said something stupid!
moderator2 wrote:LBird is a non-member guest contributor to the forum. He has in the past (before my time as moderator) been sanctioned and suspended for breaking the forum rules (if memory serves me rightly.)As a non-member of the WSM and an opponent, he has the liberty of challenging the SPGB and its members' credentials as socialists just as long as his remarks remain within limits civil and are not abusive or insulting. He is free on the forum to express sentiments that we dispute and deny. He is not subject to any Party protocol that stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a party member. Many may think he has had time enough to explain his position and question our own but as long as forum users respond and reply to his posts, he will continue to answer them. Therefore, the onus is upon forum users to take action by taking no action, when LBird posts his message. i don't think it is the purpose of moderators to control or censor the contents of posts other than enforcing the forum rules. LBird has been reminded to remain on-topic and not to de-rail threads. If he persists and, especially if there are complaints, the moderators will, indeed, act. Something, i hope he is fully aware of. One thing has to be remembered, LBird, unlike Cde. Marratty, has no recourse to an appeal process other than request the moderators to review their decision. Our decision is the final one. We could impose a permanent ban if we so wished but i wonder, considering the criticism we have received at continuing, for the time being, the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed when the moderators are being asked to change their attitude and approach to moderation towards a lighter touch.Mod 2So just to clarify, there appear to be three points you are making:1.. there is a "protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" could you please: a) point out where this protocol is, does it exist on the forum rules? b) explain exactly AND EXPLICITLY where comrade Marratty has breached this "protocol"2. That there are different judgements made for forum contributers that are members of the SPGB as opposed to those who are not (Again I would be very interested in seeing EXACTLY where this is written in the forum rules or within party procedures)3.when asked about a ban for L Bird you state "considering the criticism we have received at continuing, ………. the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed"it appears that you are saying that as Cde Marraty's suspension is receivening criticism, you don't want to receive more criticism for doing the same thing again. So you are clearly indicating that you cannot support acting in the same way twice. Surely then the logical position is, if you can't support doing it a second time, you can't support doing it the first time.For once in this issue, Conrade, I would really appreciate a straight answer to some fairly straight questions. with regards to the first point I made could you also please explain how Mod 1 accusing me of being anti democratic was not a breach of the protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" and how in the light of his comment he was not banned from the forum?
Dropthebomb wrote:Tim Kilgallon I see no reason why a Socialist Party should feel uncomfortable about making capital investments.Should the Party spot a promising business opportunity, does it mean to invest just its own funds, or will it be open to individual members to have a gamble? I have my modest pile in ERNIE bonds, but I'll be waiting til the Crack o' Doom before he picks me out. I take for granted that the draw is honest, the administrators incorruptible, and that there is not a sniff of a fiddle. But have you ever met anyone or even heard of anyone who has won a prize any bigger than a £1,000? Wouldn't it be nice to know for sure that larger prize winners do in fact exist? Having got that off my chest, lets get back on-thread before the moderators notice something.As someone who finds the Investors Chronicle frankly baffling, the Party sharing potentially lucrative information would be the comradely thing to do. Let's help ourselves to help ourselves. Yours For Profitable Socialist Activity.Judging from your comments (making the fairly safe assumption that you are also Twyford John) I am not shocked that you find the Investors Chronicle baffling, I would have thought that you found walking up right without dragging your knuckles along the street a bit of a struggle.
alanjjohnstone wrote:i don't think anyone really should be rejoicing the possible exit of any member of the Party, particularly with our declining numbers.It is also especially disappointing that someone who has only been a user of the forum for only just a couple of days and, therefore, missed the many contributions from the comrade that weren't disruptive but supportive of the Party should adopt such a jubilant attitude.Are you really naive enough to think that it's jsomeone who joined in the last few days, Considering they are referring to past events, do you not think it's more likely to be someone who has been a regular contributor who has set up a second account to send this message, because they haven't got the courage or the integrity to express an opinion like that in an open and honest way? I sincerely hope that Vin and Linda have had time to rethink their contribution and that "drop the bomb" goes and crawls back under whichever rock they crawled out from under.
According to the Irish comic Tommy Tiernan all we need to do is find out who it is we owe the money to "and shoot the fecker"
The song is also known as "the green fields of France" The Dubliners versions of 'The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "now I'm easy" are also well worth a listen
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless. They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote. this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is.This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.On the other hand, it could be argued that once 'affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.' become rarer, that the changing socio-economic basis of the 'property ownership' of 'citizenship and voting' will remove their supposed 'interest' in those political benefits.I'd suggest that the latter argument, that 'citizenship and voting' aren't the key interests for workers, and that YMS is wrong, is the Marxist approach.Once workers realise, with the help of socialists, that 'citizenship and voting' can't ensure that they have decent housing, etc., then they will become more critical of YMS's thesis of 'the propertied proletariat', a direct contradiction of Marx's socio-historical views.
tbis whole argument hinges on the premise that we all, as gnome says, have the same brain, that the working class all operate like one monolithic thinking machine. We all have a brain, we all have similar brains however we do not all have anywhere near the same brains. Our brains and the way they function are effected by many different factors.There is a plethora of evidence, for instance to show that cognitive development in children exposed to neglect, privation and abuse is massively different to those children who experience warm nurturing experiences in the first 3 or so years in their life. For example the limbic system of children who have experienced abusive parenting is often massively overdeveloped in comparison to children who have been nurtured. This overdevelopment is mirrored by a lack of development in the cerebral cortex. Just as another example of how different factors impact, studies of the impact of lead poisoning on cognitive ability have been highlighted in recent years. The fall in the use of lead in petrol has been linked to many things, including falling crime rates and the Flynn Factor.it is easy to dismiss this as bourgeois science, in fact it's nearly all carried out by waged labour, however it needs to inform our practice.We need to understand that we live in a what some people with Asperger's s Syndrome describe as a neuro diverse world. Yes class and economic circumstances play a massive part in how we think and experience our world, but it is not the only factor in spreading Socialist ideas.The case for socialism is a class based solution, however we need to recognise that the case for socialism is a multi dimensional one. Because of this our approach to propaganda needs to be multi dimensional. Some workers will find the economic arguments attractive, some the social arguments. Some will find written material persuasive some will prefer visual material more their cup of tea. Some may even find strong regional accents light their candle!
HollyHead wrote:"Power is a great aphrodisiac" (Henry Kissinger) Perhaps it's the sex they're after?What does that say about people who join the SPGB?
ALB wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:We aren't arguing that bonobos can act like humans. We're arguing that humans can act like bonobos.That's exactly my point ! But humans are not the "third chimpanzee" but a quite different species with quite different behavioural patterns and possibilities. Our behaviour may exhibit similarities between those of chimps but that's just a co-incidence.
to say that all behavioural similarities are necessarily a coincidence is not really correct. For instance attachment behaviour, which is vital to mammal survival, can be noted in practically all mammals to a greater or lesser extent, precisely because it gives mammals who demonstrate it an evolutionary advantage.There are, however in my opinion, a few very real problems in using animal models to develop information about human psychology.Some animals in certain conditions exhibit behaviour which is similar to human behaviour, however all animals also have many behaviours that differ greatly from human behaviour and humans also exhibit behavours which differ greatly from the animals that they are compared to.Therefore using examples of animal behaviour that are ostensibly the same as human behaviours, to make inferences about behaviours of humans that that are different from the animals that are being compared (which is often what is done in animal studies) makes about as much sense as saying at certain times we behave like chimpanzees, therefore chimpanzees must be able to play scrabble.Another issue is that just because animals are exhibiting the same behaviours as humans, it doesn't mean they are necessarily behaving in that way for the same reason that humans do, there is a similar flaw in classically based studies of human behaviour, as two humans might behave in the same way, but for two different reasons.This leads on to another flaw in animal studies, which is that they can only study behaviour, any study of the cognitive factors which are influencing the animal behaviour, must necessarily be inferred from the behaviour exhibited. In contrast human based studies have the advantage that those involved can give report of the cognitive factors involved in the behaviour studied. Additionally it is clear that animal based cognitions are very different from animal cognitions, as we have the additional feature of language in our cognitions.As Vygotsky pointed out, once we become verbal not only do our relationships with others in our species change, our relationship with our own cognitions also changes, as we move to thinking primarily through the use of language, effectively we begin to have conversations with ourselves. Once this process of verbalisation begins the thought processes we can develop increase in line with the sophistication of our own internal language. As animals do not have verbal language and even if chimps and bonobos do have a form of internal speech, it is clearly no where near the level of sophisticated speech that humans have. Therefore the cognitive processes which drive behaviour must necessarily be very different in humans and chimps or bonobos.
Twford John wrote:I see why you would feel uncomfortable about Socialist Party Investments and wish to pass it off as a joke. It wasn't my purpose to embarrass you. What I am trying to get at, and I should have used a less sensitive example, is: do you believe that democracy is, as it were, a trump card. That if a majority of the membership supports a proposal, no matter how preposterous ( and a revolutionary party making capital investments does appear pretty preposterous ),then the democratic decision overrides everything else?Jim D'Arcy certainly had a bob or two. Now if only I could remember how he got all that money?oh that's right I remember, didn't he own a building company, where he employed workers and by definition paid them less than the value of their labour time? I also seem to recall a rumour that his business was prosperous because he used lumpy labour (non unionised labour that is). Perhaps Twyford John gets his name from being a plumber for D'Arcy. Has he got a mate called Armitage Shanks Fred? Pretty apt name you have there John, considering tha quality of your contribution
