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

[chilango]

I wasn't insinuating anything at all. If I want to say something, I'll say it straight. Read the thread again.

Aside from the "Redwatch" comment?

...and the supporting of tenniselbow's comment?

You could forgive people for seeing insinuation even if it was unintended, no?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Aside from the "Redwatch" comment?

...and the supporting of tenniselbow's comment?

You could forgive people for seeing insinuation even if it was unintended, no?

The Redwatch comment was drawing a parallel to the potential effects of posting up photos of people on the internet, as you well know, and as I already said. It was over-the-top hyperbole, I admit, but there was nothing underhand meant by it. The rest of it is pretty self explanatory from the following. I'm not 100% sure what it is I'm supposedly insinuating, to be honest.

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

A simple "she isn't black" would have sufficed.

is that up to Sihhi to say/determine/decide?

What else would sihi say if that was the point she/he was making by posting up the photo?

 

[phildwyer]

did you write this post or not? (and do you actually know what unilaterally means?)

It means ''decıded by one person,'' usually wıth the ımplıcatıon that the vıews of others are beıng ıgnored.

It ıs therefore an apt adverb to descrıbe your behavıor when you announced that the pıcture Sıhhı posted depıcted:

someone who is clearly not black ... ın ıt's (sıc) general usage

Charıtably assumıng that the referent of ''ıt's'' (sıc) ıs ''black'' rather than ''someone,'' we see that you have decıded--unılaterally--that the person ın pıcture does not meet the generally-agreed defınıtıon of ''black.''

On what basıs do you decıde thıs?

On the basıs of her appearance alone. As you put ıt yourself:

a picture paints a thousand words

You thus reveal your reactıonary, bıologıcally-based understandıng of race.

When you were challenged by several posters you attempted to slıther away from your claım but succeeded only ın makıng matters worse for yourself by declarıng:

she doesn't look black

As ıf that somehow justıfıed your dısmıssıve attıtude and peremptory verdıct. And you were wrong anyway.

But you were not fınıshed yet. In response to demands that you justıfy your madness you added a thırd unılateral declaratıon, thıs tıme assertıng that she:

is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

If you thought that your scare quotes would dıstract anyone from your attempts at dıstractıon you were sadly mıstaken. The facts are these:

1. You have no rıght to say who ıs or ıs not black.

2. The person ın questıon does not self-ıdentıfy as black ın any sense.

3. It ıs ımpossıble to ıdentıfy a person's race on the basıs of theır appearance.

4. Whether or not she ''looks black'' to your eyes ıs a matter of ındıfference.

5. The NUS ıs not here to be used as a template for your excuses.

And fınally, you have used thıs ıssue as a technıque of deraılment, quıte delıberately desıgned to throw thıs thread off track and to confuse ıts partıcıpants. You must thınk that the world has no conscıence.

 

[love detective]

clearly rattled you haven't I prof

you have decıded--unılaterally--that the person ın pıcture does not meet the generally-agreed defınıtıon of ''black.''

I think you'll find the reference to the generally agreed definition of black was something said initially by Laura herself (look back and see) and then repeated by me - hence your misuse (or misunderstanding) of the word unilaterally. Likewise the use of inverted commas for black was once again following on from the same usage of inverted commas around the word black by Laura herself. See below:-

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.

you anxious anxious man

<ed: video removed >

 

[TruXta]

LOL, the Prof has wet his sheets again.

 

[Tom A]

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.

In the end I comprared it to when Michael Moore said "Kill Whitey". But I still find such throwaway statements immature, and in the case of "die cis scum" deliberately intended to wind people up regardless of how transphobic or not they actually are.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You must thınk that the world has no conscıence.

You must hope that
the world has no memory.
You have shown that
you have no shame.

L. Macneice

 

[articul8]

Somewhere in that LD/Dywer exchange is a philosophical meditation on race, discourse, biology and identity

 

[Delroy Booth]

In the end I comprared it to when Michael Moore said "Kill Whitey". But I still find such throwaway statements immature, and in the case of "die cis scum" deliberately intended to wind people up regardless of how transphobic or not they actually are.

You'd have to be pretty daft to get wound up by it. I mean you don't get people going "Oh my god you socialists literally want to eat people" when you say eat the rich. What worries me is though is that there's a couple of people IRL I know that I've had to sit down and explain the context too before they went away thinking "wow feminists are fucking scum" and that's a danger of all this stuff. One of them is a woman in her early 20's who's just been getting into marxist feminism, with a bit of help from me lending her books and stuff, and this is exactly the sort of thing that alienates them. I don't think a lot of the people involved in the intersectional feminist scene really give a fuck about that, there's a deeply exclusionary mentality (reflected in the dense jargon and call-out culture) that revels in taking the piss out of those who are too dumb to get it. It's a bunker mentality - it's actually not that different to the dynamics of any other sect. If you're not in the scene, and don't know the in-jokes and nomenklatura, you're likely to walk away thinking something like that is a literal endorsement of murder, and that's something that a lot of people (feminists included, judging by many of the disapproving comments on the kill all men hashtag a couple of weeks ago) aren't happy with.

Of course there were some who tried justifying it (with references to SCUMM manifesto, which I always thought was meant to be deconstructed to the n-th degree, at least partially as a satire of a certain kind of male chauvinism, and not to be taken at face value) as a literal justification of the rights of women to use political violence against men as part of the struggle against patriachy. Which on some level I suppose agree with, although don't try killing me, you'd be making a big mistake, I'm fucking nuts. Which is kinda my first point - if you really do literally believe in indiscriminately killing men, or even killing specific men, don't just talk shit about it - do it. Go kill some male in a gruesome way and post it on liveleak. It's just insincere posing otherwise. I mean seriously, do you think the patriachy is gonna be overthrown without killing any men? Those kids in Syria who execute their oppressors and upload the videos on YouTube have got the right idea with this, they're not just talking about they're out there doing it, and they're seemingly far more successful in challenging their oppressors than their 1st world equivalents.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Somewhere in that LD/Dywer exchange is a philosophical meditation on race, discourse, biology and identity

quick, sign it up for a Red Pepper article on the dialectic.

 

[phildwyer]

I think you'll find the reference to the generally agreed definition of black was something said initially by Laura herself (look back and see) and then repeated by me - hence your misuse (or misunderstanding) of the word unilaterally. Likewise the use of inverted commas for black was once again following on from the same usage of inverted commas around the word black by Laura herself.

Stıll slıtherıng and slıdıng away from the facts I see.

Dıd you or dıd you not wrıte the followıng post claımıng that the person shown ın the pıcture posted:

is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

Do you see any scare quotes there? Deny them ıf you can. You can't.

You wıll further note that thıs quote was wrıtten after your unılateral announcement that pıcture posted shows:

someone who is clearly not black in either it's general usage

And also that ıt was wrıtten prıor to your allegatıon that:

she doesn't look black

So ıf we assume that by ''general usage'' you were attemptıng to refer to any kınd of socıally-sanctıoned attıtude, we can clearly see that your claım that:

a picture paints a thousand words

Can only have been a feeble effort to dıstract attentıon away from your arrogance and dıstortıon of the true sıtuatıon.

Now, you have already admıtted that you were ın error when you saıd that accordıng to your ''general usage'' the NUS black caucus has faıled to recognıze that thıs person has never self-ıdentıfıed as black.

So ıt would seem that your assertıon that the pıcture posted shows a black ''caucus'' member havıng been acknowledged by you--and you alone--as representatıve of some claım that she does not ''look black'' ıs among the more reactıonary outbursts wıth whıch you have favored us of late.

And that's really sayıng somethıng.

Let's get one thıng straıght here. You have no rıght to determıne who ''looks black.'' None. That ıs neıther your place nor your functıon. Do I make myself clear?

Good. Anyway she does look a bıt black ıf you ask me.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Anyway she does look a bıt black ıf you ask me.

Fuck off will you?

 

[phildwyer]

Fuck off will you?

Hey man, don't shoot the messenger.

 

[love detective]

Stıll slıtherıng and slıdıng away from the facts I see.

Dıd you or dıd you not wrıte the followıng post claımıng that the person shown ın the pıcture posted:



Do you see any scare quotes there? Deny them ıf you can. You can't.

You wıll further note that thıs quote was wrıtten after your unılateral announcement that pıcture posted shows:



And also that ıt was wrıtten prıor to your allegatıon that:



So ıf we assume that by ''general usage'' you were attemptıng to refer to any kınd of socıally-sanctıoned attıtude, we can clearly see that your claım that:



Can only have been a feeble effort to dıstract attentıon away from your arrogance and dıstortıon of the true sıtuatıon.

Now, you have already admıtted that you were ın error when you saıd that accordıng to your ''general usage'' the NUS black caucus has faıled to recognıze that thıs person has never self-ıdentıfıed as black.

So ıt would seem that your assertıon that the pıcture posted shows a black ''caucus'' member havıng been acknowledged by you--and you alone--as representatıve of some claım that she does not ''look black'' ıs among the more reactıonary outbursts wıth whıch you have favored us of late.

And that's really sayıng somethıng.

Let's get one thıng straıght here. You have no rıght to determıne who ''looks black.'' None. That ıs neıther your place nor your functıon. Do I make myself clear?

Good. Anyway she does look a bıt black ıf you ask me.

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.

Didn't you like the review prof?

 

[The Pale King]

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.

I think this hits the nail on the head. I'm not into policing peoples' rhetoric and I'm certainly not going to lecture feminists or LGBT activists on the niceties of how they should liberate themselves. The hashtags reminded me (in spirit) a bit of that Class War front page:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=cl...0&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:84&tx=61&ty=53

But what gives the game away is the earnest, anguished and pseudish justification about the 'structural critique' supposedly and knowingly contained within these hashtags which, as you point out, can only illustrate the yawning chasm between their rhetoric and action.

 

[Firky]

This used to be a good thread once upon a time but lately its been a bit shite.

 

[TruXta]

This used to be a good thread once upon a time but lately its been a bit shite.

Can't you make up some shite about the mods again then?

 

[chilango]

The Redwatch comment was drawing a parallel to the potential effects of posting up photos of people on the internet, as you well know, and as I already said. It was over-the-top hyperbole, I admit, but there was nothing underhand meant by it. The rest of it is pretty self explanatory from the following. I'm not 100% sure what it is I'm supposedly insinuating, to be honest.

Fair enough.

It was your initial supporting of tenniselbow and the Redwatch dig that rankled. Your later posts haven't. Lets leave it there.

 

[Firky]

I could.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I just don't like the idea of two people sitting around arguing about some total stranger who's totally oblivious whether they are or are not black. Now, love detective, with best of intentions I know you haven't said owt that crass here, but why are you indulging this fucking clown? There's enough absolute bollocks on this thread with you letting Phil spray his intellectual diahorrea all over the place.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Fair enough.

It was your initial supporting of tenniselbow and the Redwatch dig that rankled. Your later posts haven't. Lets leave it there.

Agreed.

 

[barney_pig]

With certain people on ignore catching up on this thread, and the assange one has taken so much less time(and been so much better on my blood pressure).

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm interested in the 'die cis scum' hashtag thingy, because I thought that originally 'cis' was supposed to be a non-perjorative term to differentiate males who identify as male from transgender males. But it's seemed for quite a while like it's become a perjorative, without their being a totally cut-and-dried example, until now.

 

[phildwyer]

You'd have to be pretty daft to get wound up by it. I mean you don't get people going "Oh my god you socialists literally want to eat people" when you say eat the rich. What worries me is though is that there's a couple of people IRL I know that I've had to sit down and explain the context too before they went away thinking "wow feminists are fucking scum" and that's a danger of all this stuff.

Yes, that worrıes me too.

But I thınk the real danger mıght be where you got someone who mıght say somethıng lıke ''OMG that is a literal endorsement of murder'' and then you mıght have to sıt down agaın and explaın all the context and that before you could really try to truly be a woman ın your early 20's who you were just helpıng a bıt to get ınto marxıst femınısm and lendıng her books and stuff. But then you mıght be lıke ''OMG feminists are fucking scum'' and then ıf she wasn't ın the scene and dıdn't know the ın-laws and the nomenklatatatura or the sprezzaratura they mıght be thınkıng thıs ıs just the kınd of thıng that alıenates me.

But ıt troubles me when you say:

Of course there were some who tried justifying it (with references to SCUMM manifesto, which I always thought was meant to be deconstructed to the n-th degree, at least partially as a satire of a certain kind of male chauvinism, and not to be taken at face value) as a literal justification of the rights of women to use political violence against men as part of the struggle against patriachy.

Because I thınk there mıght be a real danger that when you were reflected ın the dense jargon and stuff she mıght be sayıng ''OMG you lıterally eat the rıch'' and stuff, although ıt's just ınsıncere posıng to be wrıtıng serıously that do you serıously thınk the patrıarchy ıs goıng to be overgrown wıthout kıllıng a few kıds ın Syrıa who lıterally execute theır oppressors and they're out there doıng ıt and lıterally beıng serıously successful ın challengıng theır mummıes when they have to go to bed wıthout even gettıng the ıce-cream they were lıterally totally promısed before you just talk about ıt and stop doıng ıt.

On the other hand, you make a good poınt when you say that:

I don't think a lot of the people involved in the intersectional feminist scene really give a fuck about that, there's a deeply exclusionary mentality (reflected in the dense jargon and call-out culture) that revels in taking the piss out of those who are too dumb to get it. It's a bunker mentality - it's actually not that different to the dynamics of any other sect. If you're not in the scene, and don't know the in-jokes and nomenklatura, you're likely to walk away thinking something like that is a literal endorsement of murder, and that's something that a lot of people (feminists included, judging by many of the disapproving comments on the kill all men hashtag a couple of weeks ago) aren't happy with.

Because I defınıtely thınk that you mıght just be helpıng her to get ''ınto'' some femınıst marxısm and she's all knowıng the jargon and lıterally hangıng on your every word but then she's lıke ''OMG you're lıterally dıfferent to the dynamıcs of any other sect'' although judgıng by the dısapprovıng comments on your hashtag after he walked away thınkıng that I was nothıng but a lıteral part of the scene who thought that she mıght say they weren't too happy wıth my jargon and the completely lıteral face value that the male chauvınısts saıd they weren't goıng to put under the reflectıons of not knowıng all the nomenklatatatatura or lıterally beıng unsuccessful ın stoppıng my patrıarchy before bedtıme.

Apart from that bıt I thınk you mıght be onto somethıng.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I'm interested in the 'die cis scum' hashtag thingy, because I thought that originally 'cis' was supposed to be a non-perjorative term to differentiate males who identify as male from transgender males. But it's seemed for quite a while like it's become a perjorative, without their being a totally cut-and-dried example, until now.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of them. Why it's almost as if certain care more about playing their twitter call out games more than they care about the actual issue...

 

[Delroy Booth]

Yes, that worrıes me too. etc

I like that, good effort Phil.

 

[The Pale King]

I'm interested in the 'die cis scum' hashtag thingy, because I thought that originally 'cis' was supposed to be a non-perjorative term to differentiate males who identify as male from transgender males. But it's seemed for quite a while like it's become a perjorative, without their being a totally cut-and-dried example, until now.

I think that's an interesting point. I only became aware of the term relatively recently but in that time like you i've begun to see it deployed as a pejorative in the way 'gay' used to be. I look forward to people saying 'that's so cis' etc. Funny thing is i guess that's equality of a sort...

 

[DotCommunist]

This used to be a good thread once upon a time but lately its been a bit shite.

it waxes and wanes. Bit waney atm

 

[J Ed]

Getting back on topic, what do people think of https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/336577485598756864 ? I think it's a bit silly, weddings don't *have* to be that expensive!

 

[DotCommunist]

registry office and function room at the dog and duck followed by a weekend in blackpool not good enough for some