Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It means that posting up photos of someone who is clearly quite young on one of the biggest bulletin boards around, makes them unnecessarily recognisable and so puts them at risk.
She herself has already decided to put her pic in the public domain.

And she can't even spell 'committee'.
 
Just seems of a piece with sihhi's "completist" style of posting-as-documentation. Can see from this thread that it's not a gendered approach so I think your concerns are misplaced, particularly given these are taken from the public domain and aren't really getting the sort of massive highlighting you seem to reckon by being on page whatever hundred of this thread.

You may be right about my concerns being misplaced, and certainly the risks are small in posting up photos, but it still sits rather uncomfortably with me. I won't draw anymore attention to the issue because as you point out, the thread is very large; best to let the next 100 pages disappear the photo into obscurity.
 
cynicaleconomy what bugged me was the insinuation, the slur implied in the raising of the photo.

I don't think it matters either way whether the photo is there or not.

The issue, for me, is the sly attack followed up by a rather alarmist argument.

She's not clandestine. We've not outed an underground activist. We are swamped by people's photos and online personal branding/promotion these days ( whether she partakes in this herself isn't really the issue). One small photo duplicated from one obscure online source to another will quickly be lost amongst the billions of others.

To imply that Sihhi had some nefarious reason for posting it or that Urban functions in the same manner as a explict fascist hit list is disingenuous at best.
 
I agree it is a small risk, but it is a risk all the same, and unless there is a good reason for the photo being included that trumps the reasons for not having a photo, it seems completely unnecessary. So can you explain what the photo adds to the debate?

I thought the photo was posted to illustrate the fact that someone who is clearly not black in either it's general usage or in terms of 'self-identifying' as black is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

Laura Ho said:
It was a definite problem that 'Black' was not defined at the beginning of the conference, especially since the NUS usage of the term is not the same as the general usage of the term. Although I fall under the NUS definition of 'black', I was confused as I do not self-identify with the term in its general
usage. I believe that there was a fair number of 'black' students who didn't attend the Black caucus for this reason.
 
cynicaleconomy what bugged me was the insinuation, the slur implied in the raising of the photo.

I don't think it matters either way whether the photo is there or not.

The issue, for me, is the sly attack followed up by a rather alarmist argument.

She's not clandestine. We've not outed an underground activist. We are swamped by people's photos and online personal branding/promotion these days ( whether she partakes in this herself isn't really the issue). One small photo duplicated from one obscure online source to another will quickly be lost amongst the billions of others.

To imply that Sihhi had some nefarious reason for posting it or that Urban functions in the same manner as a explict fascist hit list is disingenuous at best.

I didn't imply anything regarding sihi. The parallel to Redwatch was to highlight the possible consequences of bounding about photos of people. The concern I have is not sihi's or anyone elses intent, it's with people not involved in this thread but with access to it who might have fucked-up attitudes to women. The internet has lots of dangerous people on it; that fact doesn't change because no-one here has bad intent.

Oh, and I still haven't been told what the photo adds to the discussion.
 
it's with people not involved in this thread but with access to it who might have fucked-up attitudes to women.


so you are worried about faceless, voiceless sweaty palmed wronguns who may or may not be reading this thread? I hate to break this to you but the boziers of this world are not going to be looking for fodder on a thread about liberal left journos and assorted trots
 
so you are worried about faceless, voiceless sweaty palmed wronguns who may or may not be reading this thread? I hate to break this to you but the boziers of this world are not going to be looking for fodder on a thread about liberal left journos and assorted trots

May or may not be writing on the thread.
 
What else would sihi say if that was the point she/he was making by posting up the photo?

a picture paints a thousand words, and complements what she herself said about the issue

Anyroads, whether that was the reason her picture was posted or not, as others have said she's not exactly clandestine. And ironically only since you complained about it have I actually googled to find out more about her and look at her (public) facebook profile. So as a result of you and tenniselbow's misplaced 'white knighting' she has gained at least one person who is now searching for stuff about her on the internet. The kind of thing you were worried about happening in the first place has happened now not despite your intervention but because of it (not that i have bad intent like, but you know what i mean)
 
What about the pictures in this thread: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/libertarians.309310/

3406994114_c3335b7f0d.jpg
 
Open questions especially to current HE and FE students.

That is an interesting question in and of itsef but if it is true then at Sheffield things have noticably improved for women under the current women's officer. For example, the current women's officer has instituted a pro-choice policy, which in practical terms means that the union now provides financial help for travel etc for women who have abortions.
 
That is an interesting question in and of itsef but if it is true then at Sheffield things have noticably improved for women under the current women's officer. For example, the current women's officer has instituted a pro-choice policy, which in practical terms means that the union now provides financial help for travel etc for women who have abortions.
If you don't mind me asking, have you established whether this women's officer [who is speaking for women and therefore some women may object] has established a method of finding out what they think before instituting (for example) a pro-choice policy? On the [traditionally "feminist" style] face of it, that appears a quick and easy win. The reality is that this might cause division and resentment.
 
If you don't mind me asking, have you established whether this women's officer [who is speaking for women and therefore some women may object] has established a method of finding out what they think before instituting (for example) a pro-choice policy? On the [traditionally "feminist" style] face of it, that appears a quick and easy win. The reality is that this might cause division and resentment.

I don't see how it would be possible to canvass the opinon of all women in a students' union given that in every single one in the country most people know very little about student politics and care even less. Those who do know about the policy seem overwhelmingly supportive, I don't really know what objections there could be to it unless they were from students who were militantly anti-abortion, and those students would be in an even smaller minority than those involved in student politics I think.
 
I don't see how it would be possible to canvass the opinon of all women in a students' union given that in every single one in the country most people know very little about student politics and care even less. Those who do know about the policy seem overwhelmingly supportive, I don't really know what objections there could be to it unless they were from students who were militantly anti-abortion, and those students would be in an even smaller minority than those involved in student politics I think.
I was just curious about whether there was much of a religious (of any sort) influence and a few other things that I won't bore you with, cheers for the reply to what must have seemed an irrelevant question :D
 
I was just curious about whether there was much of a religious (of any sort) influence and a few other things that I won't bore you with, cheers for the reply to what must have seemed an irrelevant question :D

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound stand-offish!

I get the impression that religious societies at the uni have their own sort of self-contained politics and generally don't get too involved in student politics and see it as a bit of a waste of time.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound stand-offish!

I get the impression that religious societies at the uni have their own sort of self-contained politics and generally don't get too involved in student politics and see it as a bit of a waste of time.
Cheers :D

I'm always interested in birds-eye view of patterns of power emerging, particularly religion/anti-religion. It's sometimes hard to do when people constantly get distracted by the dog-whistle Flying Spaghetti Monster thing :D
 
http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/kill-all-men/

Stavvers says "kill all men" and "die cis scum" are provocative structural critique. Thoughts?
I've encountered "die cis scum" on Facebook, and someone got very uppity when I pointed out that it isn't a particularly pleasant statement, pretty judgemental, divisive, and separatist, in fact. But then my identifying as the same gender as I was born with and having the sexual organs associated with that gender makes all my arguments null and void, of course.

As for radfems (whom ironically tend to be at loggerheads with the trans* community), the less said the better.
 
to be fair, it's no more stupid than "eat the rich" or a million and one other lefty slogans. It is quite funny seeing people try writing deeply theoretical justifications of it though. I suppose writing pseud-ish commentaries on the ethics of a twitter hashtag is easier to do that than actually cutting a blokes head off, filming it and uploading it to liveleak. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom