thanks for sharing this. it was a good read that tackles a lot of thoughts i’ve had recently.

the whole segment on transformative justice left a real bad taste in my mouth and only served to ignore the kinds of problems i already had with these kinds of accountability systems (namely, they are voluntary, and if the perp doesn’t comply with the demands then the whole thing falls apart).

so it was refreshing to see the crimethinc essay tear it apart in a realistic way, while also offering some alternative thoughts.

Some random thoughts I can't be bothered to format:

transformative justice seems very cumbersome and would make you feel like a burden/distraction - no wonder there's an issue with people reacting poorly to someone speaking up within the group and feeling it takes time away from 'other priorities'.

i have no idea how the process ends up forcing a survivor to keep reliving the trauma and having to prove themself, when the process is supposed to be survivor-lead. how many survivors would actually want everyone to spend months trying to 'reeducate' their rapist? (i personally would rather everyone just acknowledge what happened, have that bit of history on record, and move on)

having been in school, i do not believe people can internalize/really learn stuff at a pre-set schedule (esp. when they're coerced into it); so i don't think making abusers attend anti-oppression workshops is gonna do much.

i'm a fan of action and violence but i hate how it's (always) framed as retribution -- it's just plain necessary; the pain caused is just an unfortunate side effect (no matter how much they 'deserved' it). esp when there's no actual violence involved and it's just kicking them out, that doesn't have to be seen as a vengeful thing. i don't condone causing any kind of harm that's not causally tied to an actual outcome like making the abuser go away and/or stop abusing.

ofc survivors 100% have a right to feel like taking revenge and should not be shamed for that, but ultimately a culture where revenge for revenge's sake is considered righteous to act on is imo a toxic one that replicates the logic of police and prisons (which is not saying the survivor would be 'just as bad' as the abuser if they took revenge; just that unnecessary badness (even if nowhere as severe compared to the original violation) is always, well, bad).

good point wrt the misuse of 'always believe the survivor'; i don't want people to go on a blind knee-jerk witch hunt for my abuser, I just want people to NOT interrogate me with questions like 'are you sure that's what happened?'/'are you sure you weren't half-asleep/dreaming?'/'it's been so long; are you sure you're remembering it right?'/'he seemed to really care about you, i find it hard to believe he would do that', or accuse me of trying to ruin his life/reputation.

in an ideal world, everyone would either have multiple contacts from non-overlapping groups that they can rely on for support (or be secure enough in their own self-reliance) such that if they encounter an abuser in one group, they can confidently say 'if they're staying, then I'm out', and for it to be taken as a mere declaration of intent, and not a form of retribution or a way to pressure the group to kick out the accused.

(then again, it's not like i've ever been in one myself - there's probably a reason these are the methods that end up being gravitated towards in actual groups)