[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)

[Pickman's model]

Just set out the two points for God's sake.

Yeh thisweb, but without hesitation, deviation or repetition

 

[Pickman's model]

There's certainly a spot of hesitation there

 

[Pickman's model]

Nice try. No, i said AT LEAST 2 of them. I KNOW people challenge some of the other points, and i disagree with them. But theres 2 on that list I haevnt heard arguments against by anyone. They are important but have been dismissed because they are on a leaflet that has been denounced hateful and bigoted. Whenever i bring them up, the subject changes, pedants start using personal attacks, critisie my language, or sentence formulation, insinuate im stupid or illiterate. eg ' speak english', 'sweetcheeks' just in the last hour!

Sweetcheeks doesn't insinuate stupidity, it isn't a personal attack, nor a criticism of your language or sentence formation: nor a change of subject.

 

[bimble]

Pickman's model Nice edit there, removing “I’ll Post as i see fit, my love" from your response to a woman telling you to stop calling her sweetcheecks because its a sexist patronising anti-woman cliche. Think better of that did you?

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman's model Nice edit there , removing “I’ll Post as i see fit, my love" from your response to a woman asking you to stop calling her sweetcheecks. Think better of that did you? =

do you want to know? i thought that being as i'd called her a liar and other people were also waiting for answers that i'd remove that to avoid going off on the tangent you wish to take us down. i also think that it is wicked of you to undermine poor thisweb by offering her your feeble support. she'll do better without it.

 

[bimble]

Very noble.

 

[Pickman's model]

Very noble.

yeh. let her alone, bimble. she deserves that at least.

 

[kenny g]

TBH PM - if you wanted to avoid people going on pointless tangents you would have to remove 90% of your posts...

 

[Pickman's model]

TBH PM - if you wanted to avoid people going on pointless tangents you would have to remove 90% of your posts...

14.3% I think you'll find. There is some merit to the other tangents.

 

[AverageJoe]

I have no idea what's going on. But it seems important x

 

[Pickman's model]

I have no idea what's going on. But it seems important x

Big barney at bookfair, people taking sides, new members from various povs join and are barracked: business as usual.

 

[gamerunknown]

Someone who snootily suggests pubs other than the local one has no business in class politics.

Well, snootily, sure, but there's plenty of reasons not to go to the local after a conference. Right at the top is that it'll be rammed, making it difficult to order and to hear each other. Other reasons could include loud music, price, not having desired drinks on top and so forth - not to mention beefs with other groups in attendance.

a materialist anarchist/communist class perspective that's rooted in solidarity, collective struggle, and freedom - or a identity politics outlook that's rooted in individual difference and rights.

It's related to the destruction of class as a political category, a surge in individualism, the unquestioning support for State multiculturalism on the left, a lack of collective memory of mass struggle, a disillusionment with the possibility of social change, etc.

Urgh, too early and not enough coffee to be doing this

The funniest thing about all of this is that the derisive term "identity politics" was probably first applied to people who prioritised feminist organising over workplace organising. Some of the essence of the debate is captured here. I don't have direct sources, but it's fairly simple to imagine how the conversations played out: in a post-revolutionary society, rape and abuse won't exist, so allying with bourgeois women to build or fund shelters is a form of class collaboration and thus reactionary (in fact, I've heard very similar statements at present). In fact, the quoted black feminist organisation used the term "biological essentialism" to decry the notion that men are innately oppressive, consigning it instead to a process of socialisation which occurs under capitalist, patriarchal society. Which segues into the next point: if gender based oppression is inevitable (and it's survived a change of mode of production!) and things like violence and empathy are determined by our chromosomes, then what I see as the end goals of feminism (an end to gender based oppression - a command of resources not dependent on genitalia, responsibility for raising children shared between adults) and socialism (free associations of equals for productive purposes) are impossible.

I’ve heard nothing from the IWW or SolFed yet.

Debate within London IWW ultimately culminated in a working group - London IWW already has a policy against transphobia which they decided they should uphold. Brighton SolFed signed the statement - 10 in favour, 2 against (or abstaining, I forget which).

None of them call for violence against trans identifying people, obviously I would not have supported them if they had.

Met any trans people who call themselves "trans identifying" rather than that identify as a particular gender?

If you think that other people should not be allowed to question your ideology, it makes you an authoritarian NOT an anarchist.

Yeah, how much tolerance would you have for Troy Southgate questioning yours?

Of course not, but the wider picture is it’s just rights activism. Which is a dead end as you well know.

This is particularly off kilter, given that Helen Steel was there representing the "Police Spies Out of Lives" campaign which aims for a legal case against the Police Spies infiltrating movements. Their website contains the rights on which their case is based.

Trans women dont face abuse constantly you wally.

Well, their rates of being bullied, suicide and so forth are higher than the general population and their wages are lower. Little bit pedantic in that light.

TERFs basically ignore the existence of trans men, because it ruins the theory of trans people generally being a product of misogyny.

There's also far fewer trans men. Working Class History put out a bit about a 20th century trans man on twitter and the comments were pretty wild. They noted it was easier to identify as a male than be a lesbian in those times, which is a fair point. There's also the case of Victor Barker, which is a bit of a minefield.

But there are trans people who agree with the issue they raised about the new laws. Are they transphobic too? Being gender critical is not transphobic.

This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.

For men and women to share prison cells.

Yeah, pinnacle of anarchist organising this.

Since they havent had that for, like, 2000 years.

Right, but the position of women in society has been transformed radically in the past few centuries thanks to industrialisation. If we had another social revolution, gender could cease to be nearly as pertinent (things like pregnancy would still need to be addressed).

Theressa May is supporting a change in the law to allow anyone to identify as a women. if it doesn't tell you all you need to know, it should at least cause any anti-'terf' anarchist to think more carefully about whats going on.

Discrimination lowers productivity. Two options: ban the particular characteristic (non-citizens) or protect it (gender reassignment).

 

[MrSpikey]

Would you like to defend any you disagree with?

Generally, people don't defend arguments they disagree with. Hope that helps.

 

[Red Sky]

This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.

So "self hating" trans women. "Gender traitors" perhaps.

 

[gamerunknown]

So "self hating" trans women. "Gender traitors" perhaps.

Ha

 

[thisweb]

Quite so: you are making out - suggesting, implying - you know better than me. Which is just what you're doing. Moving on... Don't what? Don't spread lies? Don't believe hearsay? Both serious flaws throughout your posts.

You used patronizing sexist language. Its clear you aren't intent on debating the issues raised in the leaflet. I'm not hanging around this vampire castle, you've made it clear my opinions are worthless to you. So long.

 

[thisweb]

Sweetcheeks doesn't insinuate stupidity, it isn't a personal attack, nor a criticism of your language or sentence formation: nor a change of subject.

No? Why don't you explain to everyone what you think it means then. I think its patronisng.

 

[thisweb]

There's certainly a spot of hesitation there

Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him . Hesitation and editing is a product of my fear , in a world where no ones opinions count, except those best able to express and write them. This is why Boris Jonson and public schoolboys run the world. Because dicks like you think presentation, accuracy of the written word is more important than the meaning. You pretend its all about getting the facts correct, but really its just about making others feel small so you dont have to debate anything.

do you want to know? i thought that being as i'd called her a liar and other people were also waiting for answers that i'd remove that to avoid going off on the tangent you wish to take us down. i also think that it is wicked of you to undermine poor thisweb by offering her your feeble support. she'll do better without it.

It isnt a tangent though Pickman. Your attitude and language, like so many mens, is fundamentally at the route of this entire conversation and the battle women must face to be heard without being patronized, shouted down or beaten. A lot of men and transwomen don't get it, you are one of them, and yet you still don't know why. And thats the problem, you cant see yourself in the mirror.

 

[Pickman's model]

No? Why don't you explain to everyone what you think it means then. I think its patronisng.

Yeh. And there was me thinking you weren't hanging round this vampire castle. I call all sorts of people, men women, transpeople and quite possibly people who fit into none of these categories sweetcheeks, sweetling, my lovely etc because - well spotted - I'm a patronising cunt. I accept what I am. Now, are you going to come out with these two points everyone's waiting on or are you as I suspect an empty vessel? My money's on the latter.

 

[Pickman's model]

Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him . Hesitation and editing is a product of my fear , in a world where no ones opinions count, except those best able to express and write them. This is why Boris Jonson and public schoolboys run the world. Because dicks like you think presentation, accuracy of the written word is more important than the meaning. You pretend its all about getting the facts correct, but really its just about making others feel small so you dont have to debate anything.

It isnt a tangent though Pickman. Your attitude and language, like so many mens, is fundamentally at the route of this entire conversation and the battle women must face to be heard without being patronized, shouted down or beaten. A lot of men and transwomen don't get it, you are one of them, and yet you still don't know why. And thats the problem, you cant see yourself in the mirror.

Yeh. You love hanging round this vampire castle. I'm quite happy to debate with you but you seem less comfortable debating issues and far happier having a pop at me. Carry on, say I. Carry on

 

[Pickman's model]

Any six lines written by a man , you can use to hang him . Hesitation and editing is a product of my fear , in a world where no ones opinions count, except those best able to express and write them. This is why Boris Jonson and public schoolboys run the world. Because dicks like you think presentation, accuracy of the written word is more important than the meaning. You pretend its all about getting the facts correct, but really its just about making others feel small so you dont have to debate anything.

It isnt a tangent though Pickman. Your attitude and language, like so many mens, is fundamentally at the route of this entire conversation and the battle women must face to be heard without being patronized, shouted down or beaten. A lot of men and transwomen don't get it, you are one of them, and yet you still don't know why. And thats the problem, you cant see yourself in the mirror.

I think you're probably the first person here to quote cardinal richelieu. But you're wrong bj etc run the world because they're the best able to express their opinions. If they were bj wouldn't have lost two jobs because of his lying - two newspaper jobs to boot. People like valerie salonas perfectly able to express their opinions at least as well as bj. But they don't have the ready access to the media or the friendship networks of auld etonians.

 

[thisweb]

a) This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.

Well, snootily, sure, but there's plenty of reasons not to go to the local after a conference. Right at the top is that it'll be rammed, making it difficult to order and to hear each other. Other reasons could include loud music, price, not having desired drinks on top and so forth - not to mention beefs with other groups in attendance.



The funniest thing about all of this is that the derisive term "identity politics" was probably first applied to people who prioritised feminist organising over workplace organising. Some of the essence of the debate is captured here. I don't have direct sources, but it's fairly simple to imagine how the conversations played out: in a post-revolutionary society, rape and abuse won't exist, so allying with bourgeois women to build or fund shelters is a form of class collaboration and thus reactionary (in fact, I've heard very similar statements at present). In fact, the quoted black feminist organisation used the term "biological essentialism" to decry the notion that men are innately oppressive, consigning it instead to a process of socialisation which occurs under capitalist, patriarchal society. Which segues into the next point: if gender based oppression is inevitable (and it's survived a change of mode of production!) and things like violence and empathy are determined by our chromosomes, then what I see as the end goals of feminism (an end to gender based oppression - a command of resources not dependent on genitalia, responsibility for raising children shared between adults) and socialism (free associations of equals for productive purposes) are impossible.



Debate within London IWW ultimately culminated in a working group - London IWW already has a policy against transphobia which they decided they should uphold. Brighton SolFed signed the statement - 10 in favour, 2 against (or abstaining, I forget which).



Met any trans people who call themselves "trans identifying" rather than that identify as a particular gender?



Yeah, how much tolerance would you have for Troy Southgate questioning yours?



This is particularly off kilter, given that Helen Steel was there representing the "Police Spies Out of Lives" campaign which aims for a legal case against the Police Spies infiltrating movements. Their website contains the rights on which their case is based.



Well, their rates of being bullied, suicide and so forth are higher than the general population and their wages are lower. Little bit pedantic in that light.



There's also far fewer trans men. Working Class History put out a bit about a 20th century trans man on twitter and the comments were pretty wild. They noted it was easier to identify as a male than be a lesbian in those times, which is a fair point. There's also the case of Victor Barker, which is a bit of a minefield.



* This is more or less the internalised transphobia position (or kapo phenomenon). It's possible to find plenty of examples of people who are willing to sacrifice any of their compatriots: Blaire White, Tiny Toese, Candace Owens.



**Yeah, pinnacle of anarchist organising this.



Right, but the position of women in society has been transformed radically in the past few centuries thanks to industrialisation. If we had another social revolution, gender could cease to be nearly as pertinent (things like pregnancy would still need to be addressed).



Discrimination lowers productivity. Two options: ban the particular characteristic (non-citizens) or protect it (gender reassignment).

c.

Yeah, pinnacle of anarchist organising this.



Right, but the position of women in society has been transformed radically in the past few centuries thanks to industrialisation. If we had another social revolution, gender could cease to be nearly as pertinent (things like pregnancy would still need to be addressed).





Discrimination lowers productivity. Two options: ban the particular characteristic (non-citizens) or protect it (gender reassignment).

*Thats your interpretation. Its dismissive . You are judging trans people as transphobic. Also the irony isnt lost on me that you think you can tell trans people that their identity isnt trans because they are transphobic.
** yeh it isnt, Im against prisons. But im against mixed prisons even more because misogyny and rape is rampant both in and out of prison. But particularly in it. If you are an anarchist you wouldn't support sex seperation at all, because you wouldnt back any policiy that allowed peopel to identify as a class 'woman' EXCEPT as a way to escape the immediate oppression of their lives. Like the way you use your birth certificate to get your railcard to get to the book fair or whatever so you can learn how to dismantle the state and its imposition of identities. Supporting the right to self identify with state oppressed woman is not the pinnacle of anarchy either. Presumably you see how its necessary for anarchist black men to identify as black, when they are fighting or testifying against violence from cops when facing prison? Under this system of oppression and racism, presumably you would not support the right of white men to identify as black men? If so why do you support the right of men to identify with those they oppress, women? After all not all white men like to oppress black men, but that doesn't make it ok to just identify as black does it? It would IF racism and misogyny didn't exist. It wouldn't matter much. But thats not the world we live in. And we don't live in a world where anarchists are free from the rules of state oppression.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you are an anarchist you wouldn't support sex seperation at all, because you wouldnt back any policiy that allowed peopel to identify as a class 'woman' EXCEPT as a way to escape the immediate oppression of their lives.

Are you in favour of mixed NHS wards?

 

[thisweb]

Generally, people don't defend arguments they disagree with. Hope that helps.

Oh gosh you didnt understand what I was saying. Im so sorry for being stupid. I should have said somethign like 'What do you disagree with and why.' But you know exactly what i meant. So dont bother. You just prefer to derail. 'Give me any three written sentences and I can use them to hang any man who wrote them'

 

[thisweb]

Yeh. You love hanging round this vampire castle. I'm quite happy to debate with you but you seem less comfortable debating issues and far happier having a pop at me. Carry on, say I. Carry on

I'm sorry? You have one line sentences talking about nothing. Using patronisng language and calling me 'sweetcheeks'. I've expressed argumenst and youve not engaged them. You are most definitely NOT happy to debate.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm sorry? You have one line sentences talking about nothing. Using patronisng language and calling me 'sweetcheeks'. I've expressed argumenst and youve not engaged them. You are most definitely NOT happy to debate.

Yeh. So we're happy liars together then.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm sorry? You have one line sentences talking about nothing. Using patronisng language and calling me 'sweetcheeks'. I've expressed argumenst and youve not engaged them. You are most definitely NOT happy to debate.

I think you're probably the first person here to quote cardinal richelieu. But you're wrong bj etc run the world because they're the best able to express their opinions. If they were bj wouldn't have lost two jobs because of his lying - two newspaper jobs to boot. People like valerie salonas perfectly able to express their opinions at least as well as bj. But they don't have the ready access to the media or the friendship networks of auld etonians.

Yeh stupid me this isn't debate it's a one sentence put down

 

[thisweb]

I think you're probably the first person here to quote cardinal richelieu. But you're wrong bj etc run the world because they're the best able to express their opinions. If they were bj wouldn't have lost two jobs because of his lying - two newspaper jobs to boot. People like valerie salonas perfectly able to express their opinions at least as well as bj. But they don't have the ready access to the media or the friendship networks of auld etonians.

I dont think thats how British culture works. The British love aristocracy. They look up to people who speak and write well. Look at the public backlash against russel brand. Paxman message was 'What gives you, a working clas cockney, the right to speak'. To this day Brand sis till held in contempt by the vast majority of the British public, including working class activists. Few barely know what he thinks or stands for. Because his class is undesirable, so must be his opinions. His class by the way is either wealthy upity twat who doesnt deserve his money (unlike the toffs who are seen as at least deserving because they speak well) or working class thicko. The British care only about language. Speak well and you will go a long long way, no matter what an asshole you are. This is consistent with 400 years of British history.

 

[thisweb]

Are you in favour of mixed NHS wards?

Nope

 

[thisweb]

Yeh stupid me this isn't debate it's a one sentence put down

yeah yeah. I get it. I am like a dog with a bone. And you love throwing them. This is techically debate. You win.