pastradamus

Your point about swearing freely doesn't seem to fit with the forum rules anyway:

Excessive flaming is not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

If you weren't trying to call me "unmanly" or "weak", what is the point of saying that I've been "softened up" then? To be frank I don't even think the logic follows at all: Taking insults seriously = being soft??? I would think it is the other way around, "soft" is a word reserved for those who forgive easily and "turn the other cheek".

Since you care about "freedom of speech" so much, I can post messages wherever I like, including on your visitor page if I wish.

I didn't say you personally closed the threads I've started. Nor am I in any way attacking you personally.

I do not take insults to heart, but I don't just simply "forgive" people either.

If as you say people should have the rights to use swear words, then surely I have the right to swear back at the people who swear at me too? What kind of fucked up logic would it be to only allow people to swear first but not allow people to swear back at the people who personally offended them?

You big sexy Irish man!

If you think just because I complained and fought back after someone has personally offended, therefore I'm "soft" or "weak", then please, I really think you should reconsider, because the truth is precisely the opposite.

What is "weak" is precisely the "turn the other cheek" absolute pacifist ethic of Christianity-derived Western culture. People have the right to fight back against anything, and it is progressive and a sign of strength to fight back. This is what socialism is all about. FIGHTING BACK. Fight back against the exploitation of the capitalists, the imperialism of the colonialists, the sexism, racism and homophobia/transphobia of reactionaries.

To expect people to just "take" whatever comes along their way, to "turn the other cheek", to "forgive and forget", is precisely a sign of pathetic impotence and reactionary weakness. When one has lost the spirit to fight back, one has lost his or her soul. You've really got things the wrong way around.

Since you promote "freedom of speech" so much, I think at the very very least I must have at least as much rights to complain than others have to swear at me.

Your whole point about me "softening up" doesn't even make sense. It's not even relevant. I have the right to make a complaint, that's the end of that. What relevance does "softening" or "hardening" have.

If you meant that I shouldn't let this bother me so much, well as I said before it is not bothering me that much. I'm not even primarily making a personal point, but a general one.

It is stated in the forum rules that personal attacks are not allowed. Trotsky also said that socialists should have generally good manner. Frankly it is rather reactionary to think that socialists should just swear and insult other people as much as they want.

I don't know what the meaning about your point regarding me being "softened up" actually is, just because I made a comment about someone swearing at me. I made it clear at the top of the thread that this isn't primarily personal, but a general point.

I have the feeling that you are implicitly accusing me of being "unmanly", well in that case let me tell you that technically I am not a man,I am genderqueer, and indeed in some ways I might be considered as less "masculine" and more "soft" (depending on your viewpoint) than your stereotypical heterosexual male, if there is ever a thing as such. I'm proud of this fact. If you have a problem with it than that's your problem and not mine.

I disagree with your last post, unfortunately you have taken away my right to respond to the thread in order to voice my opinion. So much for your idea of the "freedom of speech".

People should have the freedom of speech, only to the extent that it does not offend or harm others. There is no such thing as "absolute freedom", or "freedom" in a metaphysical sense. All "freedoms", by definition, must be limited in one way or another. And there is always the need for regulations and ethics in any kind of society.

This is the difference between "freedom" and 'free-for-all". The latter is social darwinistic, it's the law of the jungle, which I'm very much against. I believe socialism is the dialectical negation of social darwinism.

When person A offends or hurts person B, a social darwinist blames person B's weakness, a non-social darwinist blames person A's act of offence. That's the difference.