anarchist_critic wrote

nope still not interested in the abstract human liberty of rapists

You're not interested in anyone's liberty, you're interested in totalitarian social control. You're using the fight against rape as a wedge to destroy freedom.

egoism and human rights

The point is that you don't see a unique individual, you see “a rapist” or “an abuser”, which is an abstract category. You divide humanity into people with and without rights based on this binary, so that believing in “rights for rapists” is some kind of slur. Doubtless you talk similarly about “survivors”, and hence want “survivors' rights” which are not rights of the unique one but of the category. Stirner of course criticises human rights based on the distinction between the unique one and the “human” as category. Hardly important here, since you idpols have regressed from Enlightenment humanism to the crudest forms of us-them thinking.

liberal humanist doctrine stirner and deleuze rejected

You think they'd have any truck with your morality-policing and communitarian bullshit?

Stirner literally says a thief is not my problem unless they're stealing from me, if I see all thieves as “criminals” it's spook-thought. By analogy, if you fight off someone trying to rape you because you don't want to be raped then this is legitimate enmity, if you punish someone because they're “a rapist” and therefore a “criminal” or a “sinner” or an “oppressor”, you're applying spooks and oppressing the person as a unique-one irreducible to categories.

also... the word "enable" has been in consistent use since late middle english

Not in the sense you're using it.

"accountability" as theorised in punk and anarchist spaces isn't mostly about rape? or at least abuse?

The cases which happened in my local space involved a punk painting artwork which contained a swastika, a straight man calling another straight man a f****t, a woman non-sexually jumping on another woman's back when drunk (the “survivor” was surprised but unhurt, the complainant was a third party), and an alcoholic who fell asleep and punched someone in a state of confusion when woken up. None of these involve rape. They only involve “abuse” in the most convoluted doublethink sense.

you are either approaching accountability with a ridiculously uncharitable mindset or you're a moron

I'm approaching it on the basis of how I've seen it practiced, and on the basis of the ideology behind it (behaviourism, communitarianism, spook-morality). I've seen people banned from Internet group for using the word “stupid”, I've seen mass campaigns to get people fired for expressing an opinion others don't like. I'm correspondingly uncharitable because I've seen what it does.

Also I don't need lessons on intellectual generosity from someone who thinks that buying a CD makes me guilty of abetting rape. Look in the mirror, idpol.

how could an abusive person prove to you that they are interested in your cause or scene as anything but a support system for their abuse

Yeah, right, people have to prove their innocence, and if someone's an “abuser” (by whatever catch-all definition you're using) then everything they're doing must be a means to abuse because their “abuser” label is definitive of their entire identity and everything they say or do. Spook harder, bro.

accepting that there are negative consequences and repurcussions for their behaviour might be a start

There shouldn't be “negative consequences” unless it's direct self-defence, this ideological statement “behaviours have consequences”, that's called punishment, it's statist ideology and there's no evidence it works. Relabelling “punishment” as “accountability” is a cheap trick.

If you make “negative consequences” for me, you're my enemy (at that moment) – exactly the same as if you try to rape me. I'm not accepting I was “asking for it” just because your ideology says that this is how the world should work. You will not get me to betray my uniqueness with your abstract norms and values.

Trying to make someone accept “I'm gonna hurt you and you're not gonna like it and you should accept it so you can prove you can be trusted” is an attack on their autonomy and it's irrational. There's no reason someone martyring themselves at the altar of punishment “proves” anything about them, or that your desire for revenge for whatever harm they've done should have any more moral or trust-proving status than the original harm. If anything it proves they can't be trusted because they will similarly sell out to the pigs if they're caught.

Punishment doesn't produce conformity. It produces a desire to do whatever it is you're banned from doing, combined with a fear to do so, and constant self-control and vigilance around others which interferes with direct connection. This is why idpol has both produced the alt-right as “deviance amplification” and also has destroyed the quality of relationships within anarchist spaces.

This is all basic radical criminology. Read reactance theory. Read labelling theory. Read Nietzsche. Read James Scott. Read anarchist critiques of punishment, and THEN we can talk about “consequences” for “behaviour”. Right now you're not even at first-year standard, you're regurgitating crap which might as well be from Breitbart.

Honestly, you are spewing so much unprocessed statist ideology that I have no idea how you can imagine you are an anarchist.

p.s. please leave, this is not a space for you

Rename it /f/idpol then. Again you are showing the absolute intolerance of your ideology. I've not raped anyone, but you want to get rid of me because I have an opinion you don't like. “Spaces” are just for you and your fellow conformists. Same pattern I've seen a million times from your ilk. Since I'm not doing my part in the War Effort in the great War against Rape (for which substitute Crime, Terror, Communism, Counterrevolutionaries as you please), I'm therefore aiding the enemy and must be purged. This, buddy, is why I don't trust your “accountability processes”.

Fuck your pig morality and fuck your “consequences”.


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.


anarchist_critic wrote

doesn't change the fact rape is a structural issue bound up with capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy

Either it's a structural issue to be fought by structural means, or it's an individual issue to be fought be individualised means. Choose.

that no-one can trust a rapist to help combat because they have materially contributed to it

If it's a structure then individual contributions are irrelevant or are simply effects... but still, the analogies hold. I can trust an ex-soldier who is now an activist even if they materially contributed to the worst atrocities of imperialism because that's not who they are now, in this relation. I can trust a Nazi who's good at maths to solve a maths problem because the relevant trait is that they're good at maths. If someone's previously committed rape then arguably you can't trust them in a personal relationship or trust them alone with a woman (or someone of whatever group they target)... that's about it.

sorry for prioritising my own safety and the safety of others over your imaginary "rapist's rights"!

See, what you are actually doing here is:

  1. "Prioritising" security over liberty (neoconservatism)
  2. Denying human rights, since a "rapist" is also a human (I've argued that they have basic human rights, not that they have a right to rape)
  3. Denying all rights and principles and freedom and autonomy and open spaces and the prefiguration of abundance, the entirety of progressive politics, in favour of a sad us-them binary in which your own side have all the rights and the other side have no rights - a totalitarian position.

It sounds appealing because no-one likes rape or racists, but it's a philosophical position which is piggybacking on people's emotional reactions to your emotive examples to drive a wedge into basic principles.

no such thing as enabling

Yes, I stand by this.

The word "enabling" was invented by the disability rights movement to refer to the proactive expansion of capabilities to act. It was turned into an insult by neocons as part of their "No Safe Havens" doctrine, which basically says that people are responsible for harms they didn't commit but should have prevented, because all of us are basically, morally, police who need to use policing means to make sure no-one else does anything bad. You accept the neocon doctrine, I oppose it.

by supporting his position/accomodating him/buying his merch you are contributing to the problem. avoiding that is clearly different from systematically intercepting personal mail

By promoting an artist based simply on the quality or politics of their art, one is applying an autonomous criterion to which his other actions are irrelevant, providing a content-neutral infrastructure which allows others to exercise their rights, which sometimes they will use to commit abuse and that's not your fault because you're not the one abusing anyone - it's exactly the same as the mail service posting mail which could easily include items which are threatening, harassing, or even dangerous (i.e. mail bombs).

I take a consistent position that people are not responsible for other people's actions and are not responsible for proactively policing other people's actions, it's not a sexist or racist position because I don't apply it specifically in these cases, I just don't accept that other people should be able to force me to suspend it in these cases. In general this consistent principle benefits the worse-off - we're not responsible for checking our friends' or co-workers' or employees' or renters' immigration status, for preventing them from doing drugs, for forcing people to seek treatment they don't want, for pressuring them to lose weight etc. Homeless people should be given food and shelter regardless of whether they're drinkers, drug users, mentally ill, former convicts, former soldiers, undocumented migrants, etc. All of this works to the advantage of worse-off people. It works to the advantage of women if we don't feel any obligation to pressure them to alter their appearance because it's none of our business. It works to the advantage of black people if we don't feel any obligation to check their immigration status or risk-profile them as to whether they're likely to commit crimes (aka racial profiling). It works to the advantage of people with mental health problems if we don't see "behaviour" as a criterion for social rights. It might seem to work to the disadvantage of women because it doesn't allow zero tolerance of rapists, but it actually works to the advantage of women overall. In fact, it works to the disadvantage of rapists because the more freedom and welfare rights and autonomous spaces we have, the easier it is for women to leave abusive relationships.

Also, let's follow this through. Someone discovers a cure for malaria which will save millions of lives. Shortly after, it's discovered that he's a serial rapist. Are we then obliged to not use the drug and to refuse to supply it to anyone?


anarchist_critic wrote

Nice ad hominem. Actually you've no idea what colour or gender I am, you're just jumping to conclusions based on your racist/sexist presuppositions.

women and PoC, do not have that luxury

I'm afraid they do. Millions of women voted for Trump. Millions of black Africans and other PoC in the global South vote for conservatives, democrats, nationalists, Islamists, etc. The majority of anti-abortion protesters are women. There's PoC in the US police, the US military, the UN peacekeeping forces, all the forces of structural power which you'd call "white male". Just goes to show that you can't read off someone's politics from their structural positions or vice-versa. Even stupid Stalinists realise that, but idpols actually imagine they can somehow speak for what all women or PoC already realise based on their "experience"... even though most women and most PoC never "realise" it.

the core ideal regarding the fight for human rights

Human rights is equality-based; women or PoC have the same universal rights as everyone else. Very different from idpol. You know damn well I'm not arguing in favour of segregation or lynching or police or racial profiling or immigration control or death camps. I'm not saying men should rape or hit women or that women should be expelled from the workforce. I'm arguing for basic human rights like free speech, free expression, right to access services, right to live one's own way without state or "community" repression - radicalised into the anarchist demand for autonomous spaces which aren't run on behaviourist, police-style principles. You want these basic rights taken away because muh appropriation or muh not centering certain voices or muh not enabling abuse or muh culture change and behaviour change. You can claim this benefits human rights at some future time but here and now it's taking away human rights, and the best excuse the idpols can ever make for this is to pretend it's redistributing rights from the privileged to the oppressed (which it isn't, it's just levelling-down). In some ways it's the old negative freedom vs positive freedom (liberalism vs Stalinism) debate.

so long as it harms no one else in the process

The trouble is:

  1. idpols have expanded "harm" so broad that the residual liberal sphere of negative freedom amounts to pretty much nothing, and
  2. idpols have expanded "harm" to include indirect harm to such an extent that not implementing totalitarian zero tolerance regimes amounts to a "harm" such as "enabling".

Which is also exactly how Reaganites/Thatcherites, neocons and the Third Way have gutted/twisted liberalism to turn it into a basis for totalitarianism.


anarchist_critic wrote

but that's what happens

That's maybe what happened ten years ago before idpol took root. These days it's instant accusation, "I don't have to tell you why it's racist because muh experience muh privilege", humiliating displays of apologetics or else you're out.

and you are beholden to the rest of the group to understand and work towards changing

Only if they convince you that it actually is racist (or whatever). Submitting to other people's perceptions has never been part of anarchism.

especially if you think making fun of your comrades is a communication strategy

Hell, you must live a really boring straight-laced life. Humour is often effective in taking the sting out of potentially hurtful situations. Most people are put on the defensive a lot less by someone showing through humour that what they just said is silly or inconsistent with their beliefs than by being confronted about it. Anyway part of being a close friend is being able to take the piss out of each other and not get offended.

someone who apparently wants to draw swastikas but be welcome in anarchist circles (wtf!?)

I haven't seen the artwork in question, but I can list a large number of cases where drawing a swastika is anarchist:

  1. you're drawing artwork of a clash between fascists and antifa and you put swastikas on the fascists
  2. you're drawing parodies of fascists
  3. you're drawing serious artwork about historical fascism
  4. you're drawing anti-police graphics and you put swastikas on the badges or riot shields
  5. you're attacking capitalism so you draw a swastika composed of corporate logos
  6. you're drawing a futuristic sci-fi dystopia with fascist features
  7. you're drawing a world where all political groups have their own communities, there's a fascist group and they have a swastika
  8. you're drawing artwork about ahimsa or Iranian culture or native Panamanians who use non-Nazi swastikas
  9. you're making abstract images free association style, drawing random images and one of them comes out as a swastika
  10. you're making a collage of all the most offensive images you can find

I don't see why any of these would mean you're a Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser or any less anarchist than anyone else.

Hell, even if you're drawing a crossed-out swastika or a swastika being smashed, you're gonna have to draw a swastika.

If anyone who draws a swastika is a Nazi then anyone who draws a circle-A is an anarchist and this means every company which has put a circle-A on one of their edgy products is anarchist. It also means that anyone who wears a headdress or a mohican is Native American. That's how ridiculous your argument is.


anarchist_critic wrote

First problem: mass-scale events like punk concerts, CrimethInc convergences, anarchist bookfairs, summit protests, Burning Man, cannot be built on trust. There's too many people, anyone can show up. Nor can you (or should you) guarantee that everyone receiving (say) free food from FNB or using a free web proxy is trustworthy. Maybe you can build trust in small affinity-groups but that's just a small part of anarchism.

Second problem: idpol destroys trust. If you can't trust your "comrades" not to ostracise you at the drop of a hat because you didn't capitalise "black" or slipped up over a pronoun or told an off-colour joke, if everyone is constantly watching themselves and one another for potential "microaggressions" which nobody agrees on the limits or definitions to, there is no trust whatsoever.

Third problem: you are completely missing the point about "enabling". There is no such thing as "enabling". In an anarchist world, people are autonomous. They are not "disabled" from acting by social structures. From a neocon point of view, this is "enabling" things which would not be possible in a police-state. It's a weird kind of doublethink in which creating open/free spaces and services somehow causes whatever goes on in them. And it leads to fascistic conclusions. For example: the postal service is "enabling" harassment by not inspecting and censoring all the mail which goes through, because, if it was to carry out systematic inspection and censorship, fewer harassing letters would reach their targets.

Fourth problem: you're applying a bourgeois labelling philosophy in reducing someone to the single attribute of being "a rapist" as if this is the entirety of their being. Can a person who has raped in the past become a fighter against rape later? Of course they can, just as there's ex-soldiers and even ex-cops who become anarchists. Can a rapist nonetheless contribute to solving structural problems by (say) finding a cure for cancer or designing better encryption? Of course they can. Hakim Bey has contributed great innovations to anarchist theory and has one of the most astute analyses of contemporary capitalism around. I wouldn't leave him unattended with children, but I wouldn't no-platform him either - to do so is to weaken the movement and oppress him in those areas where he's not only completely harmless but downright useful. Same issue with Captain Crunch. Someone with complex psychological needs, a victim of the police-state, who has nonetheless produced vital techniques of revolutionary import for our side of the struggle. He has a potentially fatal disease and he could literally die because of idpols. Or Julian Assange. You'd have him in Guantanamo because some Swedish undercover cop told a story about him. Even if everything he's accused of is true, protecting dissidents and whistleblowers from the world's biggest abuser - the US government - is surely more important than getting whatever paltry "justice" the Swedish pigs will offer. Your cardboard cutout "rapist" is a spook which you use to deny others' humanity. I'm against the act of rape but in situ, as a right of victims to self-defence, and prefiguratively, as a general political goal of discouraging the act, not as a way of dividing people into angels and devils, tarring someone as nothing more than "a rapist" and therefore not deserving of basic rights.


anarchist_critic wrote


Yeah, not punishing stuff you don't like is "enabling". Like how Tor "enables" pedos and drug dealers and should be shut down. Troll harder neocon.

structural problem

Did you ever learn to think logically? If it's a problem of individual criminality, you punish individuals. If it's a structural problem, you change structures. If it's a structural problem and you punish individuals, you're scapegoating. This is sociology 101.

Also do you have the slightest bit of evidence that idpol has reduced rape or racism? Because it looks the other way round from here.

what kills people

Actually the biggest thing killing women and POC right now is capitalism, a black child dies every three seconds in Africa because of resource inequalities, but idpols don't care because muh experience, plus their parents were probably religious conservatives or liberals or macho pricks so who cares, right?


anarchist_critic wrote

People driven out of anarchism will probably end up in neoliberalism because it's the dominant ideology... if you've lost your movement then finding meaning in work or business or consumerism is the easiest alternative. I'm actually far more worried at the fact that 4chan went from majority-anarchist to majority-Nazi in the course of a few years, and why that happened.

I've noticed by the way that you assume 1) that he got called-out and 2) that whatever he was called out for was actually racist. Is it even conceptually possible for you that either 1) he was never called-out, but disliked the culture that had taken over, or 2) he was called-out for something which wasn't racist, but some idpol was in a bad mood that day and/or disagreed with his politics or something?


anarchist_critic wrote

Yeah, that's known as "question begging". Not seeing the problem from your point of view = not understanding the problem = being wrong. It's not big, it's not clever and anyone can do it.

This stuff does not stem from positionality. I've met white people who are raving idpols and black people who are conservative as fuck. I've met black people who think that Illuminati and Zionists run the world, Latino Maoists who hate idpol with a vengeance, Romanian women with the most conservative gender values imaginable. One of the things which turned me off idpol was working with some multiracial working-class kids and realising how absolutely fucking unaware they all were of all the shit that idpols take as matters of positionality, and how all these middle-class college kids and upwardly mobile politicos were speaking for these people without representing them in the slightest.

I have read hundreds of books and articles about all manner of oppressions and so I have a much more panoramic view than anyone coming from a particular point of view who only sees their local situation, usually through a naive common-sense lens with little theoretical sophistication. For instance, I can say to your POC perspective (if you're a POC) - have you considered the position of people in Nigeria or Burundi or the Solomon Islands when you announce what a POC does or does not experience? Because whatever you claim, I can show you POCs who believe the opposite, and POCs who have won political struggles by believing the opposite - the field is really that diverse. I also come from an oppressed positionality recognised by idpols, but I refuse to go into details because I've learnt that it gives bullies ammunition to trigger me if I do (by getting into oppression olympics, denying that I'm an X or that being an X matters, etc). Seriously - I have suffered far more aggression towards my positionality from idpols than from anyone else I've spoken to, more hatred against me than I've ever received from leftists or post-leftists or ancaps or liberals or Marxists or social-democrats or even conservatives (granted I don't talk much to actual Nazis so probably the idpols aren't quite the worst). If I followed the idpol strategy then I'd also conclude that most of the world is X-ist and genocidal towards people like me, that I'm being constantly subject to microaggressions rooted in other people's privilege (it's true both that people say/do insensitive things and that others rarely understand my point of view without a lot of explaining), and end up hating everyone, including most of the people with the same positionality who have different politics from me. I've decided not to go that route because it makes no strategic sense and it's unfair to other people. I'm more interested in fighting the root causes and common enemies. You probably won't believe this because I'm not prepared to put my life story out here where you can abuse or doxx me, but there you go. I'm just in the same category as the historical peasant rebels who always either disguised the message or disguised themselves whenever they rebelled.

Also you're going to find yourself tied in knots if you follow this "X = white idea = wrong" logic, for the following reason. You are arguing that certain points of view can be dismissed because they come from a privileged standpoint and therefore are unable to see realities visible to other people. Suppose for sake of argument that black people are more likely to believe X and white people are more likely to believe not-X. You trust the black person's view because they're oppressed. But suppose white people do not accept that black people are oppressed or (if they are oppressed) that the X/not-X issue is part of their oppression. Suppose, even, that some white people start claiming that white people are actually oppressed and therefore, we are obliged to believe not-X. How are you going to prove that black people are really oppressed and white people are not really oppressed? You can either argue 1) that black people are oppressed because they say they're oppressed from their self-validating superior point of view, but this does nothing to resolve the dispute as this would also make the white people oppressed, or 2) you can invoke some kind of realist criterion of comparison whereby the status of being oppressed comes down to some kind of objective fact which can be understood by black people and white people. This seems to me the only way you can claim that black people are in fact oppressed, but it also requires you to reject the position of dismissing a point of view because it's "white", since you have to prove black people are oppressed by criteria which are not based on positionality.

I doubt this will stop you, because you're probably doing this for the enjoyment of being part of a righteous mob and taking out all your latent frustration on random people who aren't really any threat to you (kinda the same way the Nazis do). I'm taking away your junkie needle and you'll do anything to get it back because you're addicted to the rush it gives. So you'll come out with something like, "logic and facts are white" or "my issues are too urgent to stop and think whether my politics make any sense". Bad faith of course, but there you go.


anarchist_critic wrote

nazi symbology

Punks have always done stuff to provoke. Nobody seriously thought this guy was a Nazi. The Sex Pistols wore swastika armbands. Idpols have a zero tolerance police-state mentality. No leeway, no sensitivity for context.


This is not a fucking bourgeois board meeting, stop spewing bureaucratic bullshit.

safety of others

Yes, and we must also bomb countries which are building weapons of mass destruction, right? Because safety matters more than freedom, equality, human rights. This is just neocon pigshit reconfigured so that women or antifa are playing the role of NATO.

demand emotional labour

Demanding that a restorative justice process be two-sided and not a kangaroo court is simple equality. Idpols don't like it because they want everyone else feeding THEIR egos all the time. By the way, compassion for others is not "labour". Just goes to show how far you've internalised neoliberalism.

prioritise their own therepeutic process

If they're mentally ill then they're not responsible to begin with. And to be quite frank, if you're an anarchist then you shouldn't be starting from the premise that people are personally responsible to common norms or that ordinary people can be divided into good guys/damsels in distress and evil villains among whom one takes sides. Social problems are complex, deviance has social causes, if you're using a crime/punishment or a behaviour modification mentality then you're not an anarchist, period.

XYZ anecdotes

I know cases where people have been driven out or quit pre-emptively because of the climate of idpol hysteria. I have personally been bullied by idpols on multiple occasions for nothing worse than disagreeing with their opinions. So you can list a handful of counter-cases. So what?

Quick heads-up: it SHOULD be very hard to exclude people in anarchist spaces. Look at real stateless societies, you will see that they hardly ever exclude anyone. If there's no state or market and you're dependent on your community to survive, then excluding someone is effectively killing them. If you try to kill someone in a stateless society, chances are they'll try to kill you back.

Ten years ago I was fine with excluding people who are actual rapists or batterers and are unrepentant. I thought these repressive tendencies could be contained so they were only used against real political enemies. But it was the thin end of the wedge, now the idpols have the momentum and they're wrecking everything in sight. You saw what happened at the London bookfair, the Bay Area bookfair, the Earth First convergence. You saw these goons turn up and attack random CrimethInc people in the middle of the night, including abuse survivors, trans people, people of colour, led by someone using the pen-name "kill whitey". So clearly, we needed much stronger principles against this shit before it got so bad. Idpols have literally killed people, there was someone who died from exposure because he got idpolled by the local squat scene. And I've not seen any gains, it's not stopped the rapes, there's always new cases appearing, it's as pointless as playing whack-a-mole. These days I think it's far more important to draw a line against internal policing and so I just oppose all these kinds of processes, rather than trying to root out assholes. Idpol is turning anarchist spaces into totalitarian spaces where nobody can let their guard down and everyone has to watch what they say and do all the time, and even then someone will probably try and "call them out" over something innocent. If a rapist turns up at hospital needing treatment, it's none of the hospital's business that he's a rapist, unless he's turned up raping people at the hospital right here and now. That's not even hardcore anarchism or communism, that's just basic social-democracy - free universal services, to each according to their needs. And what's true for a hospital is even more true for a free festival or a punk gig or a social centre, which is meant to be liberated from the state. People are multiple relational beings, each connection they form is independent of the other connections, people aren't responsible for policing the entirety of other people's lives no matter how heinous the things they do, we're only justified in defending ourselves against actual enemies who are enemies in situ at this particular moment. If they aren't raping people at this very moment then it's none of your business. They shouldn't be doing it but it's irrelevant to their participation in other spaces. We need to take this line now, because of the behaviourist social cleansing that's going on. We're meant to be more committed to freedom and equality than fucking social-democrats, not less. Hell, idpols aren't even liberal any more, they haven't even taken the first step towards radicalism, they're just bigoted nationalists for their own group, ready to sacrifice (sorry, "deprioritise" and "decentre") anyone who isn't part of their group. If you have free spaces then you'll get a few assholes. If that's the price for not living in a totalitarian dictatorship then so be it. I'd rather take my chances with a few assholes and watch my own back than sell my soul to the police-state the way you have.


anarchist_critic wrote

"Abuse" has become an empty signifier. And you know very well, this shit is used for far less serious matters than rape. I've personally encountered cases involving things like, "he drew a swastika on a punk artwork in his own bedroom" and "he called another straight man a f****t". Instaban in every case. Punishment disproportionate to "crime", not to mention these are meant to be anarchist spaces and not fucking workplace disciplinary hearings.

I became an anarchist to get away from this shit and to fight this shit. Not to create a slightly less obviously authoritarian version of it in the supposed interests of the worse-off.

Anyone with a minimum sense of dignity and honour, not to mention people with psychological problems, migrants unaware of local norms, and working-class people untrained in proper middle-class etiquette, can't exist in these hyper-regulated spaces. Those who remain, live in fear of their "comrades" as anyone (including abusive cis men) can use false accusations to crybully anyone else.

Accountability is social control, not individual freedom.


anarchist_critic wrote

I don't know if the homophobia your friend suffered was real homophobia or idpol "homophobia", but we aren't going to get far with anything if we only work with people who are 100% pure and unaffected by social prejudices. If you've got a choice between drinking highly poisoned water, mildly poisoned water, or dying of thirst, I think most of us would drink the mildly poisoned water. And if we're anti-pollution activists then we'd focus on the highly poisoned water first, especially if it's less controversial and easier to solve.

internal self-evaluating assembly

Yeah, that's part of what's wrong with idpol. "Kill the cop in your head" means rejecting people telling you what to do. Anarchist politics stems from the id, not the superego. There's no point in getting rid of cops in your head if your comrades are acting as freelance cops instead.

racist behaviour

Again there's a huge difference between real racism and idpol "racism". I'm not saying you should put up with sieg-heiling neo-Nazis or people regularly spouting outright slurs or telling you to go back to wherever. But white people doing what they feel like, without overt prejudice but without "checking their privilege", is not racism. You may think it reflects racist structures or is structurally racist but your friends/comrades aren't responsible for macrosocial structures they don't control - if it's not individual racism then it's not their fault. "Behaviour" does not exist, it's an illusory construct of bourgeois psychology. What really exists are desires, affects, existential projects, and meaningful actions based on desires, affects and existential projects (and also blockages of affect and complex knots which result from these). Working with other human beings is difficult. They think differently, desire different things, have different assumptions and resonances. To work with other human beings means to make a lot of allowances, to coexist with a lot of differences. This can be reduced somewhat by only working with people with whom we have high levels of affinity, but even then, social life involves dealing with difference (for everyone, not just the "privileged"). We need to get a lot better at tolerating each other and resolving differences non-conflictually, the current norm of demanding total compliance with each person's own agenda based on group identity-claims is a recipe for the collapse of all meaningful relationships, as we're seeing in practice. Social life works better when we don't make demands on ourselves and one another to avoid all kinds of unintended offence and complicity and indirect harm, and instead relate to each other through affinity and common struggles, and direct our anger outwards instead of taking it out on one another.

Also there are a lot of options besides either tolerating or purging/quitting. Argue with them, challenge them gently, use NVC-style arguments, reason with them, ask them why they think that, make fun of them, retaliate in kind and turn it into a competition. I've used some of these strategies a lot and they're far more effective than zero-tolerance.