Ah, managerialism. And to think that he’s the one calling others “liberals”
Are you for real? On second thoughts, don't bother answering that. In the interests of sensitivity and understanding, I think I'll have a break from responding to you.
How’s the anarchist investment advice going?
Do come back when you have a position on something. Or an argument at least.
One to add to the list of the ways that you are embarrassing yourself: you don’t know what managerialism is.
One of its bases is that professional managers are required.
I should really thank you for the implicit acceptance of my initial description of the acg position.
A - you will frequently know quite a lot about the situational context, so it is simply untrue that you won’t ‘by definition’. Not least because your wider understanding of patriarchal violence has been informed by those situations.
Sitting on the fence and pretending everything is just an abstract discussion and that anything will be resolved if we just talk nicely will do even less, I assure you.
Which begs the question, why are you posting then?
One thing that occurred to me on reading the ACG statement previously, which I've just remembered on reading your quote of it here, is that
This might be a more pertinent point to discuss if there were more (any?) women involved in this discussion*. But a bunch of (mostly?) middle-aged white cisblokes shouldn't be the ones moving away from the abstract towards the concrete on this one.
True. Which makes it an even bigger shame that the actions of some middle aged white cis blokes drive so many trans women and men away.
I don't comment in these discussions because I suspect that I'd end up using the 'wrong' vocabulary or something and get jumped on and I haven't the time or inclination to get involve in the nitpicking fighting.
Well, there were no Wetherspoon’s in Barcelona…
And it's a shame that the shoutiness of blokes like you drive so many cis women away.
He can say what he likes but I'm afraid it won't be me answering as I've currently got the trolling cunt's bad faith bollocks on ignore
I think there's an entirely legitimate discussion to be had about this when it plays out in different settings, like the bookfair. Maybe also about the wider politics that are in play in this debate, or at least the form it takes. But yes, very much so as to your core point. It would be great if this was a discussion primarily between those most affected. And yes, a shouty white men's discussion makes that even less likely.
That, I accept, is entirely fair enough. I do get incredibly impatient with people, tho have always tried to rein it in when talking with women or trans people, on this subject in particular. Most of the time I'm not angry, I am honestly shocked and surprised at some of the excuses being trotted out to excuse vacuity. And by the refusal to engage at all beyond an 'oh yes it is/oh no it isn't level.' On the occasions when people have actually tried to raise the issues involved, I'll reply politely. I wont when people are completely disingenuous or just go 'yes/no'.
I agree with you about the purity spiralling, in terms of the last couple of pages on this thread, as part of the 'stall' story and what has gone on in the wider left. Same time, I'm unsure why you regard the ACG in general and Danny in particular as "happy to throw the insult of 'bigot' or 'transphobe' at any one, including those with a long history in left wing liberationist sexual politics then you can't cry when its thrown at you". I'm confused, so that is as they say 'a genuine question'.
It's more to do with why they are refusing to, not just within the statement explicitly on trans rights, but in the ongoing discussion in general.
