tanattyn

1

tanattyn wrote

It's so, predictable, that you're blaming the victim of sexual harassment when the site isn't even built to the point I can message mods privately (my comments complaining about it on f/meta might be deleted as a coverup). And you're trying to discredit me, tell me I'm acting crazy and random, and trying to turn it into a false accusation, and trying to turn it into some way that I'm disrupting site discourse or being unreasonably destructive.

RespectWomen deleted that thread and I didn't have a chance to screenshot it all, and then left a .7z file of it in the comments here. So, pursuing him through random posts was the only reliable way to even partially resolve the issue. He wasn't going to admit anything without being badgered, I had to badger him.

Feminist resistance in a society that is designed to silence rape accusations is ugly, it's ill-behaved, it's crazy-seeming compared to the current order (coincidentally, is patriarchy). You pretend you have no idea how the sophisticated social mechanisms of rape culture work, but you're enacting them, right now, regardless of whether you have some personal malice toward me.

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in My problems with r/@, #1 by /u/tanattyn

2

tanattyn wrote

... oh. Sorry. I just, I get paranoid/hypervigilant after being stalked for weeks by far-right scum on Reddit, and just seeing how deeply and pervasively infiltrated Reddit anticapitalist subs are.

lutherblissett is very consistently TWEF/SWEF, you know. There's probably not gonna be a change of mind with that one. There's even a chance it's Cathy Brennan or Bev Jo or one of their novice nuns-in-street-clothes. They're probably from r/GenderCritical, r/anarcha. This is a coordinated effort, it's a coherent reactionary group now, it's not just a few bored rich white cis lesbians stalking trans women.

1

tanattyn wrote

Respectwomen accused me of attacking veganarchist on the false grounds that veganarchist was the sexual harasser; now you're doing the same thing with respectwomen. So you can imagine how sideways my eyes are, when it was an obvious 4chan-ish user doing all the worst shit like the sexual harassment, and y'all were responding to that user in shock that they'd sexually harass me. I'm screenshotting this exchange, this is weird, either I'm matrix-conspiracy-crazy or this entire site usergroup is lowkey sketchy af.

2

tanattyn wrote

I am really, really side-eyeing the American left/@ lately, but, I guess ...

  1. The system needs a way to remove far-right entryist mods without majority vote. Cause otherwise a trans woman did all this work just to make a better-looking Stormfront and/or a manarchists/brocialist site. If it's gonna be a democracy then I'd suggest it be a single-party left democracy that defends itself with a vengeance. Reddit is that for the right, as we've discovered.

  2. Mods that fail to remove comments that commit minor offenses, even if the mod is notified of the offensive comment by users; or if the mod fails to suspend or ban reactionaries, or open right-wing users, should be warned, then removed.

  3. Mods that are suspected of conspiracy to destroy raddit should be questioned ASAP, and removed if the lack of evidence or counter-evidence is not convincing of their loyalty to "the party".

  4. There should be a way for mods to propose to emma additional categories of users that the mods consider so destructive to raddit structure that they are effectively an enemy of the left/@, and can be suspended or banned on sight. Capitalism is hella creative about ways to destroy the left.

  5. Mods should be warned, and then suspended or banned if they suppress a user's criticism of the mod structure because it is not close enough to full-communism/anarchism for a user's comfort. In other words, free speech for opinions in line with emma+mod structure or to the left of it, should be as allowed as right-wing speech is suppressed. Although, IMO, if there is no safe way to shift things closer to full-communism/anarchy, respectful silence might be the best response.

  6. Mods should be 50-60+% minorities when possible, like the Cuban parliament with 1/2 women and/or 1/4 Black folks but taken further. Proven impersonation of a minority should result in a unilateral ban from up top, with the evidence and expulsion process made transparent. However, assuming emma is not a member of literally every oppressed demographic, she must listen to mod or user appeals to a falsely-grounded ban or suspension of this type, or entire sections of the left will be alienated from democratic control. This was a major flaw in the Castro regime that had to be corrected over decades.

  7. The mods need to be unilaterally warned, and then suspended or banned if they engage in any behavior that is unanimously, left-wide unacceptable like oppressive slurs, sexual harassment from any patriarchal-superior class to a patriarchal-inferior class (a man on a woman, a straight male on a queer male, etc), suppressing demographic-minority dissent, etc; they should be held to a higher standard than users, like politicians superficially are. The justification for and process of banning should be laid out for the mods for sake of transparency.

  8. I agree with the 3+ month rule. It doesn't halt stealth entryism but it will kill the cheap-quick-thrill troll type of entryist.

  9. If pandemonium breaks loose, I support emma if she decides to hard-purge the mods of stealth entryists and other elements that are disrupting the system from being as democratic/anarchic as it can be, while preventing a takeover by parties that exploit security gaps in democratic structure.

  10. There needs to be a skeleton backup site made in case of a hack of Raddit that mods or everyone can use for meta discussion while the coup is defeated and the mess cleaned up, so to speak. If there is so much effort to destroy raddit that the enemy has infiltrated to the point that this measure is ineffective, it's time to start over elsewhere. Another option is to keep in touch on some anonymous, more neutral social medium like YouTube channels held by several Raddit users. If YouTube is actively destroying left networking efforts at that point, then the American bourgeoisie have chosen to rally behind fascism and every one of us in the US needs to seriously consider IRL underground resistance networks or fleeing the country if we're minorities and can manage to flee, lol.

1

tanattyn wrote

Okay, I apologize for assuming you were white. Deleting all my posts in the wake of me being literally sexually harassed and pathologized in a typical 4chan-like manner, and then saying what you did, seemed like the kind of thing right-wing white Reddit mods say to justify silencing dissent toward racist/sexist opinions.

Reply to comment by /u/emma in My problems with r/@, #1 by /u/tanattyn

1

tanattyn wrote

Goddess save, if only I was a religious right white cishet man (lutherblissett), I could post TWEF/SWEF bullshit, become a mod, and join the other white cishet men teaming up on an unpopular trans woman (me) to sexually harass her, and pathologize her anger at racism (Defasher), on a trans woman's leftist/anarchist-only site.

This is why I gave up on anarchism. IRL white men are the same as far-right scum that pretend to be Marxist/anarchist online, I can't tell some difference I'm supposed to find between them. Their misogyny is almost unchecked, almost like white women are obsessed with encouraging it. If they were - well, radically, different than this, I could believe in anarchy or communism. But no, they want nothing but zero-sum war with women. Their Marxism/anarchism is almost always just a mask for wanting access to more women, like Solanas said for all her other faults. They deserve to be brutally exploited to the maximum possible extent.

Reply to comment by /u/emma in My problems with r/@, #1 by /u/tanattyn

1

tanattyn wrote

You or someone appointed lutherblissett as a mod to at least one sub. And on top of having a user that's literally Luther Bless It, they have said some outrageously TWEF/SWEFy things like, I think "intersectionality" is bourgeois postmodern liberal crap; implying they agree with the Nordic Model, two. They spent an entire paragraph elaborating how much they hate me as a trans woman, because I suggested violence was even theoretically a solution to patriarchy. And finally them and KarlMarx teamed up, two, to pathologize my anger at racist, sexist "idpol is why (white men) don't have socialism" shit, and being sexually harassed today on raddit. Ofc the post has been deleted, so, fuck me.

I'm fucking done with this, farce, online and IRL, where one has to be perfectly polite and take every insult and injury from white cis/trans able males, oftentimes upper/middle-class, with a smile, so long as they claim to be leftists/anarchists. Or I just, don't have non-liberal friends, at all. I'll die a shutin before that. I really actually will.

3

tanattyn wrote

Easy for me.

Trash the remnants of feudalism (i.e. the far right, the church and the non-profit charities that learned from them). That will happen in our lifetimes, I believe; no one cares about church anymore. Then, the bourgeoisie's nature as pointlessly ineffective economic planners is pretty obvious. In the US gov't the (official!) income inequality is about 8:1, and short of committing a felony you never have to lose your job - not unimaginably far from socialism. Most of the population wants that - wants not just single-payer but socialized healthcare and guaranteed jobs, I won't listen to anything else. And guaranteed jobs inevitably mean worker's councils, a massive reduction of incarceration rates, and drug decriminalization. The way to do that is simple: kill "outsourcing".

And you still have all the weapons so it's not like the former US is a sitting duck once it socializes. The opposite, really. Take the former US military and back a leftist overthrow of Putin, and Posada's got all the nukes, drones, airstrikes etc in the world to back Marxist revolutions everywhere. Game over.

4

tanattyn wrote

I don't want to research feminist discourse at all before I tell everyone "feminism bad biased etc Q.E.D.", I just want to make people that have, feel like shit. In fact I want to pathologize and publicly shame people that do know women's issues, and pollute the discourse with unchecked emotional opposition.

Noted.

1

tanattyn wrote

I'm reading this ragefest he had with Enkara in r/met@, lol. "I just wanna smoke weed and talk deep shit with my bros and mercilessly alienate/isolate anyone that gets upset over anything at all in a world that genocides pretty much everyone below me" but then he's a fucking r/drama king?

I think a few things would get us past the point where shit-flinging contests with total reactionary bullshit like this, is such a struggle.

A. An unofficial, flexible, non-monolithic, but widespread codification of etiquette.

A+. Someone can say, "I follow [insert version of leftist code]" and people know they can keep this person accountable to that code.

B. Training oneself to live outside of family/housed life, if one hasn't had that life already.

B1. Homelessness, celibacy, and panhandling is what they used to do with Zen novice monks. That would do part of it.

B2. I.e. combat training to the extent possible without, you know, signing up to kill for an empire. Martial arts, minority-friendly gun ranges, wargames with friends, studying strategy/tactics, etc.

B3. On its own this would be lifestylism at best and slumming at worst, but I insist that being able to personally live outside a suburban family house, should be a minimum expectation. How can one understand a path to abolish the family, rent, etc, without knowing any existence outside of it?

B3+. And one might say well, what about someone that uses a wheelchair? Do they just up and leave their family? That's a fucking great problem to have with this requirement, and the solution is not to throw it out and forget about it, but to educate a comrade that's wheelchaired on how to transition into i.e. welfare/low-income life and disability housing. Cause being dependent on an abusive family is Hell, and I know that as someone that was stuck in a few very abusive situations cause I was disabled and had no better options until I knew better.

C. Initiation process into organizations.

C1. "Rules" about what conditions must be met to be initiated into organizations (i.e. what the 3-month wait to get into r/met@ was about, but more thorough).

C2. Obligation to educate/train initiates.

D. Formalized accountability process.

D1. This is a lot harder outside of groups with regular membership - which is why I think groups with regular membership need to be emphasized again.

D2. At some point there'd be a lot of leftist-ish or even friendly single-concern groups that agree to cooperate in an inter-group accountability network in some way, even if their aims or group emphases are different. This might require a sort of universal minimum code.

~~

This would accomplish a few things:

  1. Leftism would have some level of widely-accepted conduct that someone can quickly point to. It would be much easier to point out misbehavior as belonging to newbies or outright opponents. And this way no one can just say "well these are rules you made up cause you're a blah blah blah", lol no, no one's gonna stand for that particular shit anymore.

  2. Undoubtedly it would alienate crypto-reactionaries like manarchists/brocialists. There's absolutely no way this process wouldn't include a left-wide agreement to deal with i.e. sexual harassment.

  3. There'd be a difference between i.e. hobby historians of USSR history that make memes, and actual socialists. There are undoubtedly actual socialists that know USSR history like the back of their hand and make memes. But a minimum behavioral component is the border between a socialist, and a creeptacular weeaboo that is consuming the USSR/PRC/etc like another colonial product.

  4. Liberal standards of conduct would be alienated as well. Say it's widely, explicitly agreed that i.e. punching (someone that acts like) a comrade, or someone that's trying to be good but doesn't know anything yet and has a finite grace period to learn, is a very different thing than punching a fascist or MRA. In a situation like that, liberals, middle-class pacifists etc, have a lot less ability to mask themselves in leftist language while stealing leftist emotional and social labor for capitalism (and by extension, fascism, or the feudalist component of capitalism). You might think this is a trivial point, but a large list of rules like that makes a big difference. In fact, I daresay this is the crucial point where a leftist is distinguished from, say, a liberal academician that gets vaguely good feels thinking about leftism.

  5. All this put together, bullshit is handled a lot faster, when possible openly and transparently, and more frequently, allowing us to do more things that are not handling the buildup of bullshit.

  6. This immediately kills the "anarchy = chaos" strawman, and leaves the capitalist feeling like the chaotic one - which, you know, is the point, they control through forcing a chaotic/wasteful social structure on almost everyone.

  7. It provides a starker contrast between leftists, and people that empty leftist signifiers and commodify and consume them. I hate to say this but, buying all the expensive lefty books in the world is kinda like this, unless it comes with at least a dramatic change of personal behavior, if not more.

  8. There is no in-group without this. Without it, a left/@ group or circle is just isolated individuals fighting godawful behavior from anyone that feels like showing up and sabotaging everything, doing sexual predator shit, and everyone just kinda looks around awkwardly, makes excuses, tells you you're acting crazy/divisive ... but, that's exactly what happens in "apolitical" (unrestrained capitalist) interactions.

  9. It helps autistic and otherwise socially disabled folks to have a list of unchanging rules they can rely on.

  10. The more social standards between leftists/@s that are based on leftist/@ goals, are less social standards between leftists/@s that are based on capitalist goals.