Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BarbarousPants wrote

I had been wondering for some time where this controversy came from, specifically. Which part of it are you referring to? I'm looking through it right now and am unsure which of the things he wrote are what is being referred to (in part because I've come across what seem to be uncredited (this may just be formatting but I'm unsure) parts that may or may not have been written by him).

6

a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

For Wolfi the controversy primarily comes from his piece "Child Molestation vs. Child Love". (Again I'm unsure if links would break the ToS so I'll just state that an annotated version is easily findable but the un-annotated version is also available. If messaging it isn't against the rules I could also do that if there's a messaging feature.) He like many other post-leftists (and even others such as Gilles Duave) supported (unsure if his or anyone else stance has changed) child-adult relationships and in this text, and other texts, he encourages people to "freely share erotic pleasure with children". This magazine issue I have brought up is AJODAs issue on "Child Sexuality" and it contains several essays which make a case for why youth liberation stances should include youths autonomy to sexual exploration as well as how this topic then relates to the adults who may be parts of those relationships (often referred to as pedophiles).

Edit: also I believe wolfis essay "to be done with the economy of love" which appears in the following issue of AJODA (double issue 20/21) advocates not only to share love and erotic pleasure with children but also, plants, animals, and non-living things.

While iirc none of the prominent articles are by any of the "big names" of post-left theory. Several "big names" were associated with the publication at the time, and continued to be after such as iirc, Zerzan and Wolfi both contributing to this issue and I believe Bob Black was also a regular contributer at this time but I do not recall if his work appeared in this issue. The reason I bring up the "big names" is because it is my opinion the work of these individuals (tbh less so zerzan) lends itself to support the arguments made in the magazine issue, and so if people influenced by their work largely disagree with this stance, I am curious as to why.

−4

haulonthebowline wrote

He like many other post-leftists (and even others such as Gilles Duave) supported (unsure if his or anyone else stance has changed) child-adult relationships

Who are the 'many other post-leftists' you are referring to here?

and in this text, and other texts, he encourages people to "freely share erotic pleasure with children"

Which other texts?

5

a_zed_9 OP wrote

Prominent ones would be Jason McQuin I believe his name is, who published AJODA 19 on child sexuality. Hakim Bey is a known member of Nambla and to my knowledge LBC also distributes texts about child sexuality so i would lump Aragon in there.

The other text I believe is called "To be done with the Economy of Love" it is in AJODA issue 20-21 (double issue).

−6

haulonthebowline wrote

Jason McQuin 'supported child-adult relationships'? Gonna need a source on that one.

to my knowledge LBC also distributes texts about child sexuality so i would lump Aragon in there

And to my knowledge you beat your wife.

Seriously, fuck off with this nonsense.

7

a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

The source is AJODA #19.

Edit: also googling LBC child sexuality shows that LBC still has this pamphlet for sale.

−5

[deleted] wrote

8

haulonthebowline wrote

LBC and most other publishers in the world. The only people who don't do this are AK Press, PM Press, Leninists and other ideological nerds.

5

a_zed_9 OP wrote

Sure they may not agree personally but I do think its indicative that they find it to be part of the anarchist milue, which it is.

−2

ziq wrote

you sure are working hard to associate child rape with anarchy for some reason

4

a_zed_9 OP wrote

Again ive said nothing of child rape. But it is not just myself who has made the connection between this topic and anarchism. This text AJODA 19 I think is proof of the association.

−1

ziq wrote

I just wrote an essay about anarchy and how much fun skinning puppies alive is. I think this is proof of the association.

Btw where's this essay you wrote about child semen you were telling #anarchyplanet I'd be 'anal' about if you posted it here? Let's see it.

5

a_zed_9 OP wrote

The link is in matrix, you should be able to find it there, again I'm not trying to get banned. And yes people have written about lots of taboo subjects in relation to anarchy for example black seed six includes a essay on infanticide. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, as agreeing with something just because it's "anarchy" is ideological, but there's a reason people come to these connections.

−1

ziq wrote

Well if i read it and it demonstrates you're a pedo trying to tie anarchy to raping kids, im gonna ban you whether you linked it here or not.

4

a_zed_9 OP wrote

Well that's dumb, didn't realize off site activity was bannable. But if ghats the case i don't understand why you havent done so already since I can already guess your response to some of the comments I've made on the IRC will be.

I'm willing to abide by the ToS here but if your gonna try and police my whole existence then it's not worth it to not be banned.

−3

ziq wrote

I only look at that irc when someone uses my name so I have no idea what you've said on there outside of saying I'm 'anal' about pedos.

It's not 'dumb' to prevent pedos from appropriating anarchy to promote pedoing. So are you a pedo or not? Because I just tried to read that semen thing and it bored me to tears so I had to stop. Still no idea what it's about.

5

ziq admin wrote

Just got confirmation from someone who read it that a_zed_9'a a proud pedo. Banned.

5

haulonthebowline wrote (edited )

Have you read AJODA 19? Have you read the pamphlet? Do you honestly think both of them are just page after page of anarchists saying 'we should all rape kids?'

Honestly, in the time you've spent whining on this thread you could have read both, realised neither are what you think, and moved on with your life.

5

a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

I have read AJODA 19, I havent read the pamphlet but it seems to be primarily a reprint of AJODA 19. And no, no where have I mentioned the rape of children. I'm also not whining, I actually think AJODA 19 is a very interesting text and that more people should read, but there are several other people in the thread who seem to be losing their mind that anarchists/anarchism would be associated with such a topic.

−3

haulonthebowline wrote

I actually think AJODA 19 is a very interesting text and that more people should read, but there are several other people in the thread who seem to be losing their mind that anarchists/anarchism would be associated with such a topic.

Perhaps you should be clear about what it is you want from this conversation. To me it seems like you're swinging between trying to smear certain anarchists (or even all anarchists) as pedophiles (i.e. adults who want to have sex with children) and trying to hear what people think about AJODA 19. Maybe you're just concern trolling.

All I'll say on the topic is that the distinction between children and adults is arbitrary, as are the state's various age of consent (as low as twelve in some places, as high as 21 in others). The various customs around sex in stateless cultures are just as arbitrary. My personal position, and one I've lived by no matter where I go in the world, is that it's good practice to only have sex (or any kind of erotic play) with people of a similar age and ability to yourself.

7

a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

Perhaps you should be clear about what it is you want from this conversation.

My apologies if the topic hasn't been clear but I am hoping to hear what people who have read AJODA 19 make of the arguments inside. I brought up Wolfis essay since it covers the same topic and is a text more people are familiar with. Because wolfis essay is similar, and it got a lot of backlash, and the fact not denouncing this piece may get one banned, I wanted to anticipate negative comments and ask how one separated these ideas from the authors larger work. A question I find extremely interesting since it seems to me that for people like wolfi and other post leftists who seek the complete autonomy if all things, as well as critiquing morality, saying this stance on child sexuality has nothing to do with the larger aim, doss not make immediate sense to me, so I'm curious how people do it.

To me it seems like you're swinging between trying to smear certain anarchists (or even all anarchists) as pedophiles (i.e. adults who want to have sex with children) and trying to hear what people think about AJODA 19.

My intention is not to smear anyone, if you take my words as a smear that is reflexive of your own values. I do not use any of these words in an intentionally derogatory way (even if they can have derogatory meanings). I say that these authors advocate pedophilia because the arguments they put forth are considered pedophilia by most people as most people just take pedophilia to mean anything sexual between a minor and adult. As well these works have been influential to people who take the label pedophile proudly for themself. So I do not use the term to smear, but to accurately describe the arguments and community these texts have been influential towards. Whether you thing that is a mark against these authors is your own opinion. I do not hold any negative opinion on these authors for these texts in question.

All I'll say on the topic is that the distinction between children and adults is arbitrary.

I completely agree. While this magazine issue touches on this a little bit i believe i definitely wish this line of argumentation had been explored more particular how this idea ties into identity abolition/nihlism/anti-identity. Since I think this argument is generalizable to all identity i think it is then easier for those not in this particular identity to understand.

it's good practice to only have sex (or any kind of erotic play) with people of a similar age and ability to yourself.

I do not want to come off as accusatory but simply to ask a question to spark further thought and discussion. But do you think that not having sex or erotic play with people due to them having different abilities could come off as ableist? (I would say this is similar to the argument made that explicitly choosing not to date trans women by straight men reinforces transphobia).

Edit: changed Dating to "sex or erotic play" since I realized the change in phrasing is not truly interchangeable.

−1

haulonthebowline wrote

I say that these authors advocate pedophilia because the arguments they put forth are considered pedophilia by most people

Okay, but you are naming people who never made that kind of argument. They either published a booklet that included similar arguments (as well as opposing arguments) or edited the magazine that the arguments and for some reason you think that puts them on team pro-pedophile.

But do you think that not having sex or erotic play with people due to them having different abilities could come off as ableist?

Possibly. I thought twice about using that word but it accurately describes my thinking. I would never date or whatever someone who, for example, had a profound learning difficulty. I was thinking of a video I saw by a lefttube person about a neo-Nazi who is engaged to a 19-year-old whose learning difficulties mean she is childlike. The video is here: https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=b0OsdkHelf0

As you can see, this is not the same as 'choosing not to date trans women by straight men reinforces transphobia.'

4

syster wrote

For Wolfi the controversy primarily comes from his piece

yes, but wasn't Wolfi also writing pieces that aimed to correct such errors?

2