Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hang on, you claimed 'progressive stacks' are not stacked on the basis of appearance, you're then asked on what basis they are stacked and your answer is that it's first come first served. Are you talking about a 'progressive stack' or not? if you are then you still need to answer the question of what basis they are stacked on rather than appearance, otherwise you're not offering any defence for the practice at all.

No I haven't. At all. Go back and read.
 
But surely the loudest ones would also be quickest to stick their mitts up? So do they let people speak in reverse order of putting mitts up then?

..and people would just stick their hand up at the start to "reserve" their speaking spot.

In fact isn't there quite a famous example of a similar procedure being used in this way?
 
How to prioritise the quiet ones once the loudest ones have had their say, sort of thing.
Make them speak by forcing them to, like job based participation :D

There are no easy answers to this are there, but there are wrong answers i think. The progressive stack is one of them.
 
Again, I think folk are getting confused with this style of meeting with some privilege checking.

What? The 'progressive stack' aims to select for members of 'oppressed groups' when people want to speak. If you don't know the people at the meeting how are you going to judge whether they're a member of one of these groups unless you do so by sight?
 
No I haven't. At all. Go back and read.
Yes you have:

cesare said:
My main problem with it is that the stack is stacked according to appearance, which can be very misleading.
Not any stack I've seen.

So we have you saying 'progressive stacks' don't stack according to appearance.

These 'progressive stacks' that you've seen, if they don't order on appearance what did they order on? If you again answer that it's first come first served then you're not talking about a 'progressive stack', and the confusion is yours.
 
what about "progressive stack" based on class then, out of interest? A "no privately educated people wittering on" rule would tempt me....
 
Make them speak by forcing them to, like job based participation :D

There are no easy answers to this are there, but there are wrong answers i think. The progressive stack is one of them.
I just don't see how the progressive stack would work in practice unless it's a swift judgment call by the facilitator based on appearance.
 
Does anyone else think this kind of propaganda is insulting and patronising, regardless of your opinions on intersectionality or whatever.

'No liberation without equal representation' is an interesting one. :hmm:
What should the Oxbridge quota be?
Given that there are 7.24 million between ages of 18-24 in Britain, but only 40,000 in that age bracket who have attended Oxbridge - and over half of Oxbridge is private school.
What is the equal Oxbridge graduate:non-Oxbridge representation ratio?
 
In a 'progressive stack' Laurie Penny, a privately educated upper-middle-class columnist, would come before a white working-class male since she identifies as working-class and poor and goodness knows how many other identity politics subgroups. That's ridiculous.
 
I think this sort of thing has been useful as it clearly shows a non-class/cross-class model of organising is the default assumption for many people who think of themselves as radicals, as the only legitimate model, one that just needs a bit of self-finessing, but is essentially benign at worst or helpful at best.
 
What? The 'progressive stack' aims to select for members of 'oppressed groups' when people want to speak. If you don't know the people at the meeting how are you going to judge whether they're a member of one of these groups unless you do so by sight?

I'm not talking about the 'progressive' stack. If you read back a lot of peope were getting upset with the hand signals popularly used in consensus based groups and that was getting tied in with this 'progressive' bother.
 
Yes you have:




So we have you saying 'progressive stacks' don't stack according to appearance.

These 'progressive stacks' that you've seen, if they don't order on appearance what did they order on? If you again answer that it's first come first served then you're not talking about a 'progressive stack', and the confusion is yours.

Stack. Not progressive stack.
 
I just don't see how the progressive stack would work in practice unless it's a swift judgment call by the facilitator based on appearance.
There really can't be - hence the silence when asked on what other grounds it could work. I can see one other way, people self-certify themselves as bourgeois or something prior to the meeting. On small scale extremely local community type initiatives this sort of thing would be done informally anyway as people know each other, this mess is partly due to the fact that people in these groups don't know each other in that way, don;t really work live and drink/eat together, they have come together as part of an event rather than through everyday life (this might only apply to stuff like occupy).
 
I'm not talking about the 'progressive' stack. If you read back a lot of peope were getting upset with the hand signals popularly used in consensus based groups and that was getting tied in with this 'progressive' bother.

So hand signals (beyond merely raising your hand to notify your wish to speak) good or bad?
 
There really can't be - hence the silence when asked on what other grounds it could work. I can see one other way, people self-certify themselves as bourgeois or something prior to the meeting. On small scale extremely local community type initiatives this sort of thing would be done informally anyway as people know each other, this mess is partly due to the fact that people in these groups don't know each other in that way, don;t really work live and drink/eat together, they have come together as part of an event rather than through everyday life (this might only apply to stuff like occupy).

Ex-fucking-actly.

The clue to the answer is here too...
 
wtf?? beyonce says all sorts of anti-feminist and homophobic shit
"if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it" etc

This chorus is repeated half a dozen times in one of her songs where she is credited as writer and producer

"Nasty put some clothes on, I told you /
Don't walk out your house without no clothes on, I told you /
Girl whatchu thinkin' about lookin' that tow down [ugly], I told you /
These men don't want no hot female that's-been-round-the-block-female, you nasty girl"
 
I'm not talking about the 'progressive' stack. If you read back a lot of peope were getting upset with the hand signals popularly used in consensus based groups and that was getting tied in with this 'progressive' bother.

Everyone else was. So maybe it's you who's confused about what we're talking about.
 
In a 'progressive stack' Laurie Penny, a privately educated upper-middle-class columnist, would come before a white working-class male since she identifies as working-class and poor and goodness knows how many other identity politics subgroups. That's ridiculous.

Why can't the white male simply identify as immigrant? That's what this is all leading to.
 
They do more good than harm IME.

They enable people to get a word in edge ways. You can get a feel for what's possible with and wanted by the group.

They exclude people who are uncomfortable with it. They exclude those who are not familiar with the vocabulary of hand signals. They (can) serve as a mask for intrinsic problems with participation.

They do have a role, a limited one, at some meetings I guess, but as a generalised approach? Hell no!
 
They exclude people who are uncomfortable with it. They exclude those who are not familiar with the vocabulary of hand signals. They (can) serve as a mask for intrinsic problems with participation.

They do have a role, a limited one, at some meetings I guess, but as a generalised approach? Hell no!

As I said earlier any facilitator worth their salt would go over the hand signals first. It's not learning BSL.
 
Yes. That was it.

:)
That was it, and a phrase in the article sums up exactly what I was talking about "there was also a group of about 200 people who we didn’t have facilitators for". Oh noes! We didn't have facilitators for them! So many of the anrchoid events around that time were inspired by raves and other events and unfortunately often had a similar producer/consumer divide. The producers would organise the fun games, the public would turn up and participate.

I was also there at the Sheffield event that they say was an inspiration. That was based on several tiny groups who all knew each otehr and who all made on the spot decisions. It was what chilango wants, i suppose. But then in the heaving industrial metropolis of Manchester on May 1st, the same model didn't work.

People turned up and there wasn't enough facilitators for them! I was one of those excess people, and we were fairly successful as a 200 strong crowd. People have to know ways of organising as a large crowd, instead of just backing away and deciding it's not your thing.
 
This chorus is repeated half a dozen times in one of her songs where she is credited as writer and producer

"Nasty put some clothes on, I told you /
Don't walk out your house without no clothes on, I told you /
Girl whatchu thinkin' about lookin' that tow down [ugly], I told you /
These men don't want no hot female that's-been-round-the-block-female, you nasty girl"

yeah how can anyone who's a feminist think that's ok?

what's next, anti-racists defending the lyrics of skrewdriver songs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom