Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-1

anarchist_critic wrote

clearly not arguing in good faith

Yes I am, you're the one who isn't.

You see the world as divided into two sides - the totalitarian idpols and the totalitarian rapists and Nazis - and if someone's not on your side then they must be on the other side ("you're either with us or you're with the enemy" - Bush). So you repeatedly try to twist what I say into your binary division. Hence your phrases like, "rights of rapists", which was not my phrase at all, it's your way of twisting my refusal of your Darwinian dog-eat-dog morality into taking the other side within this morality. I don't have any particular concern with the rights of "rapists", but if the attack on universal rights and on the possibility for autonomy is being carried out through the zero-tolerance crackdown on rape, then this is the terrain you force me onto.

Every bigot has their own excuse for imposing generalised totalitarianism, for one it's suppression of rape, for another suppression of terrorism, for another it's crime in the ghettos, risk of epidemics, "uncontrolled" migration, it's the need to prevent foreign interference, hacking, reds under the beds or counterrevolutionary elements or Trotskyist-Japanese wreckers. The formula is horribly repetitive. Identify a single overwhelming evil the stamping-out of which is the most important thing in the world, define the good/decent people through their unity against the overwhelming evil, show how any kind of universal rights or freedom or welfare or autonomous spaces or constraint on the state/pigs/"community"/Red Guards stands in the way to doing absolutely everything possible to stamp out the overwhelming evil, show therefore that all anarchists and liberals and social-democrats and opponents of the established power-holder (or the revolutionary power-in-waiting) are therefore "objectively" and "materially" on the side of the overwhelming evil, and thus concentrate all power in the hands of the state or the Party or the little clique of internet warriors whose job it is to stamp out the evil in question. Sometimes it leads to full-scale totalitarianism, other times it's a strategic tool to chip away at concrete liberties and expand the reach of the state.

This is exactly the strategy Stalin adopted to deal with "counterrevolutionaries".

This is exactly the strategy Hitler adopted to deal with "Bolsheviks".

This is exactly the strategy Bush adopted to deal with "terrorism".

This is exactly the strategy Mugabe adopted to deal with "racist western imperialists".

This is exactly the strategy Giuliani adopted to deal with "crime in the ghetto".

This is exactly the strategy Blair adopted to deal with "anti-social behaviour".

This is exactly the strategy Israel adopt against the Palestinians ("their houses and hospitals are really terrorist infrastructure").

This is exactly the strategy the CIA and FBI adopt to argue for censorship of the Internet ("it's enabling terrorism and child abuse").

This is exactly the strategy Erdogan adopted to deal with "coup plotters".

This is exactly the strategy Duterte adopted to deal with drugs.

And it's the strategy you and your idpol buddies are adopting to deal with rape.

And not only with rape, but with an ever-shifting array of supposedly intolerable evils ranging from TERFs to unwanted sexual advances to hate speech. And I'm sure the only reason you've chosen rape rather than bhindis or pronouns as your battleground is that you'll get more sympathy that way.

Same shit, different anus. You've just found a more emotive, more progressive-sounding overwhelming evil which works better to convince anarchists, leftists and liberals to sleepwalk into a totalitarian cybernetic dystopia.

The problem with this is not the identification of rape as the core issue. In fact, you've found a core issue which is more "real" in its harms than most of the ones statists choose. The problem is with your use of a general structure and grammar of argument which is statist and totalitarian to the core.

You think I'm arguing in bad faith because I must share either your binary, or your grammar. But I deal with direct, literal propositions and evidence - you deal with irrational moralistic gut reactions and battles for status. You try to twist what I say into some kind of status move or tactic in a status-game which I'm not playing.

I'm simply defending a consistent anarchist position against totalitarian idpol.

Anarchists do not accept - have never accepted - the sacrifice of freedom to secure everyone against the overwhelming evil. We have never accepted the construction of identities primarily through an us/them binary. Anarchist community is built through the strength of affective connection at its core. Anarchist philosophy is contextually variable and responsive. Preventing concentrations of power is absolutely vital. The us/them model has been thoroughly rebutted by people like Stirner, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Vaneigem. We can never sell our soul of freedom for a little illusory "security" against an overwhelming evil which, more often than not, is tied-up with the state itself.