American anarchists meaninglessly devour themselves at Portland Conference

[Das Uberdog]

The Law & Disorder Conference from May 9th-11th was recently victim to a protest against one of its speakers - Kristian Williams. Williams has been subject to a blacklisting campaign from activists since he authored this article, a criticism of 'call out culture'.



Though I hesitate to associate this 'protest' with any forum with 'politics' in the name, I think it's worth making a note of whilst there are still so many in this country attempting to import this crazed political culture.

 

[Das Uberdog]

And at the end, they call the police...

More background here and here.

 

[butchersapron]

Posted this already elsewhere, but check the card at the end for the name of the youtube channel.

Note: on campus. I wonder what private liberal college this was?

 

[Das Uberdog]

i think it's advertised as being held in Portland State University

 

[Idris2002]

To live outside the law you must be honest.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, 888 (the one who posted this on libcom and who posts here - or did years ago) was living up that way last time i spoke to him. He may have more info.

 

[Idris2002]

The Law & Disorder Conference from May 9th-11th was recently victim to a protest against one of its speakers - Kristian Williams. Williams has been subject to a blacklisting campaign from activists since he authored this article, a criticism of 'call out culture'.



Though I hesitate to associate this 'protest' with any forum with 'politics' in the name, I think it's worth making a note of whilst there are still so many in this country attempting to import this crazed political culture.

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

 

[DaveCinzano]

What a terrifically odd piece of theatre!

I'm not surprised they tried to shout him down when he comes up with hate speech like this:

We behave, in other words, not like a movement but like a scene––and a particularly cliquish, insular, and unfriendly scene at that.

As a side note I have been reading some of his stuff recently. His Profiles of Provocateurs pamphlet is a decent short read which nails many of the issues around police infiltration of political groups (from a recent, US perspective - but one which is analogous to the UK situation), whilst warning against snitchjacketing, atrophy-through-fear etc.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Well that wasn't cringe worthy at all was it?

 

[Doctor Carrot]

What a terrifically odd piece of theatre!

I'm not surprised they tried to shout him down when he comes up with hate speech like this:

How is that hate speech? I've encountered enough of the sort of behaviour he describes. Granted, I haven't exactly been massively involved in any anarchist organisations but I've hovered on the edges of some here and there. In fact that sort of behaviour was why I didn't bother venturing much further and haven't done so since.

 

[DotCommunist]

I think Mr Cinzano was being ironic

 

[butchersapron]

Clinically.

 

[Pickman's model]

DaveCinzano ta for the link in post #8

 

[DaveCinzano]

Your name will also go on zee list, Doktor Karrot!

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Fair enough

 

[Idris2002]

Yeah, check your lack of irony privilege, Doc.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

The chanting thing that Americans get up to always reminds me of this:

 

[Idris2002]

The chanting thing that Americans get up to always reminds me of this:

And that's it, it's ultimately a religious phenomenon with these people, a warped and secularised version of Calvinism - be constantly on the look-out for opportunities to show that you are of the elect.

 

[SpookyFrank]

From the article linked to in the OP:

Several people––mostly women, interestingly––told me they were afraid to say anything about the controversy, lest they go "off-script" and find themselves denounced as bad feminists.

I've seen this kind of thing happening; the shoutiest, rantiest people effectively deciding what can and cannot be discussed, and controlling the parameters of debate. It doesn't matter what your actual position is, if you're defending that position by simply sabotaging any attempts people make to express different opinions then you're not being a very good anarchist, or a very good anything really.

Then you've got stuff like this:

We also feel that framing the discourse around survivor’s needs as 'political disagreements' or 'political arguments' is in of itself sexist––as it pretends that this conversation should be emptied of subjective narrative, or that there is an equal playing ground in the conversation because the conversation itself isn’t about real power, or that this conversation itself isn’t already racialized and gendered. It is also problematic, in that it suggests that there is a neutral or objective rationality in this debate, rather than the possibility that the debate itself and the content of the debate is a socially contingent result of prevailing power dynamics.

...which, while effectively meaningless in terms of its actual content, seems like a pretty clear attempt to label those who disagree on some semantic point or other as somehow supporting or defending abuse. Using the kind of dense jargon beloved of politics undergrads also serves to exclude people from the debate, and yet I bet the people who wrote this will happily talk for hours about how beastly it is to exclude people who are different from you.

 

[J Ed]

Amazing. I imagine that if the Seymour-Magpie vs rump ISN raceplaygate spectacle happened in person then it would look something like this.

 

[butchersapron]

From the article linked to in the OP:



I've seen this kind of thing happening; the shoutiest, rantiest people effectively deciding what can and cannot be discussed, and controlling the parameters of debate. It doesn't matter what your actual position is, if you're defending that position by simply sabotaging any attempts people make to express different opinions then you're not being a very good anarchist, or a very good anything really.

Then you've got stuff like this:



...which, while effectively meaningless in terms of its actual content, seems like a pretty clear attempt to label those who disagree on some semantic point or other as somehow supporting or defending abuse. Using the kind of dense jargon beloved of politics undergrads also serves to exclude people from the debate, and yet I bet the people who wrote this will happily talk for hours about how beastly it is not to exclude people who are different from you.

The whole ploy is to position someone as defending/not caring/justifying something bad then appeal to the audience. It really is that simple. Addressing any issues, nope, no chance.

And i still haven't personally seen any of this over here - not one example. The best would be individuals acting like dicks at the bookfair.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Portland United Intersectional Red Army assist Kristian Williams in his self-critique:

 

[butchersapron]

Not made up.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Not made up.

Am I imagining things, or is the nomenclature actually getting even more complicated?

...We continue to have persons presenting on LGBTIQQAA issues and topics this year such as, but not limited to...

‘LGBTIQQAA’ - now 50% better than ‘people’.

 

[Voley]

I got to about 1:40 before the cringiness got to me.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The whole ploy is to position someone as defending/not caring/justifying something bad then appeal to the audience. It really is that simple. Addressing any issues, nope, no chance.

And i still haven't personally seen any of this over here - not one example. The best would be individuals acting like dicks at the bookfair.

I'd say I haven't seen anything on quite that scale in this country, but sometimes I worry we're heading in that direction. Voices of reason do still exist over here though and they usually seem to prevail in the end.

I recently found myself caught between two factions of the anti-fracking movement and things were starting to get pretty daft. The Big Bad Thing in this case is police brutality, and there have been people saying that other people's actions don't count because they didn't get their heads kicked in by the police for doing them. The actual issue is lost of course, even the nature of the actions themselves is disregarded, it's all 'with us or against us' type stuff based solely on an imaginary dichotomy of tactics.

As you say, the badness of the thing you oppose is used as a stick to beat others who oppose the same thing but do so in a way you don't like. And this is often done by highly intelligent people who really should know better. I'm sure I've been guilty of this sort of behaviour myself on occasion, but thankfully there's usually someone there to calm me down before I go and start a fucking cult about it.

 

[butchersapron]

Am I imagining things, or is the nomenclature actually getting even more complicated?



‘LGBTIQQAA’ - now 50% better than ‘people’.

As is persons. What an odd bunch.

...We continue to have persons presenting on LGBTIQQAA issues and topics this year such as, but not limited to...

 

[SpookyFrank]

I got to about 1:40 before the cringiness got to me.

Impressive, I only watched for long enough to confirm that yes, self-proclaimed anarchists are doing synchronised, rehearsed chanting to stop someone from speaking.

 

[J Ed]

 

[DaveCinzano]

Not made up.

I don't know why I do this to myself, but I was curious - mildly, not excessively curious - to find out who these DGR beasts are. Turns out they are the wrong kind of women (as in radfems).

http://feministcurrent.com/7773/podcast-deep-green-resistance-under-attack/