Banned Again - by an "anti-fascist board" - Rigorous Intuition

Rig Int banned me. Apparently because I was a duplicate identity, or something.

I only ever posted there under one name - same as the one I use here, and at hraunfjord.org: the_last_name_left.

Anyone saying otherwise is simply a liar, or just simply plain wrong. I know the facts of my own actions, obviously. I can't see how or why anyone would spoof my IP address.

So what to make of another self-proclaimed "anti-fascist"/progressive board banning people without warning for spurious reasons?

Apparently I wasn't even banned for riding my hobby horse of warning about fascism's subversion of 911Troof. Yet - whilst I apparently wasn't banned for the content of my posts, there are posts about the banning which certainly do refer to what I'd said. Of course they completely misrepresent what I'd said.

I'm accused of inferring guilt by association, of employing the fallacy that "Nazis eat apples. Mr X eats apples. Mr X is a Nazi."

Of course I never made that argument. But that reductio absurdum of my argument is easier to deal with than the real ones, which ask things like "How much can someone share with Nazism before they must be considered 'a Nazi'."

Of course sharing a taste for apples is irrelevant.

Why are people on a supposedly "anti-fascist board" attacking and misrepresenting someone whom warns of fascism? Why does a self-proclaimed "anti-fascist" board so willingly accept banning people so groundlessly? Censorship is only an issue for "the powers that be", I suppose? When "the powers that be" do it, it's an infringement of civil liberty but when internet forums do it, it's the exercise of private property privilege - an expression of liberty. Yeah, right..... And somehow the advocates of private property miss this, when they complain about what Time, MSNBC, and other private media report. When mass media pursues its own interests it's called bias and censorship. What's it called when 911 Troof or "progressives" do it? The mass media is actually far more tolerant and reflective of diverse criticism than so much of the new-media, self-proclaiming their 'radicalism', anti-fascism or 'progressivism'.

I was accused of numerous things at RigInt, particularly of simplifying the issues and employing the fallacy of 'guilt by association'. And yet no comment was passed on the repeated posting of a picture of a red Hitler with a hammer and sickle armband. Not hard to see what the implication is - but somehow such propaganda cartoons aren't examples of 'guilt by association.' The communist Hitler cartoon drew no word of condemnation from the board at RigInt. Anti-fascist, or actually anti-communist? The poster believes they're the same thing - and RigInt is silent about it. So why doesn't RigInt claim to be "anti-communist", just as it claims to be "anti-fascist"? Because at RigInt, crude anti-communism elicits none of the ire that greets warnings of fascism within 911Troof. Why no criticism of simplicity for Hitler as a communist? Why no cries of 'guilt by association' over symbolising Hitler as "a red"?

Why is it tolerable that Hitler can be portrayed as a communist, and yet my efforts at warning about fascists posing as progressives are merely crude simplification and an effort at "guilt by association"?

And anyway - what is my banning at RigInt, if not an example of guilt by association? Who else am I suspected of being? who is it that so deserves banning, that the mere suspicion I am they, requires an immediate ban? (And no right of reply, of course.) And what should it matter if I was that person, anyway? I'm not, but so what? How does that matter?

A poster writes: "He's an old friend that's not welcome here. .."

Believe what you like, oh truthwarrior! If anyone on the planet knows the truth of the situation I do - and I am no-one's sockpuppet.

It reminds me of being banned from Progressive Independent after 2 posts. All I asked was "Who owns Progressive Independent?" - and I was banned. PI is registered to a proxy registrar, suggesting the real registrants want to retain their anonymity. Why?

PI is a self-proclaimed "progressive" and "leftist" forum - which keeps its ownership "anonymous". "full disclosure" it ain't - and they banned me for asking about it. They could have just pointed me to the facts, but instead chose to ban me. Odd behaviour for a progressive/leftist forum - dedicated to "finding the truth" blah blah blah. From my perspective, ownership is a crucial issue for lefties. Seems it is for PI too - only they prefer to keep their ownership 'anonymous'.

And like Rigorous Intuition, whilst there's claims to being "progressive" and "anti-fascist" at Progressive Independent, there's a dearth of actual anti-fascism or progressivism. Not surprising when you advertise for membership at Rivero's WRH, as PI has done. Such places as RI and PI can behave little differently to that what they claim to be in opposition to.

I checked the RigInt subject group-heading of "fascism". I found 6 entries for the entire year 2008. One thread was one of my own - which went unanswered, and another thread was a list of holocaust deniers, again, unanswered. Is that a fair measure of their "anti-fascism"? Or are instant bans and suppression the measure? Or maybe the measure is their use of false allegation absent a right of reply?

But even if RigInt were innocently simply plain wrong - and not maliciously and consciously deceitful - their behaviour still speaks volumes. Penguin the RigInt poster insisted one must judge people by what they DO. Apparently he never noticed that was the foundation of my criticisms.

I wouldn't labour the point, but my banning can be seen as vindicating my criticism. Amongst other things I criticised a dishonest attitude to evidence - and I'm now banned on the (entirely spurious) grounds of being an unwanted "old friend". I'm obviously very well-placed to judge such an assessment of any possible evidence, because I know what I do. Such a position affords me the knowledge that my criticism is vindicated.

Big deal. Keep your precious forum free from my dissent - it's your prerogative, isn't it, property owners?