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

[andysays]

...Or why you're characterising it as a case of "making excuses" for "those who used the incident as an excuse to attack the organisers" — which tbh is a pretty partisan way of putting that...

I suggest you go back and read the statement from the organisers of the Bookfair about why they won't be organising one this year

 

[Rob Ray]

Thanks for the advice, I was the one who published it at Freedom and one of the few people who actually went out of their way to phone up a collective member for a chat about it though, and much as they were upset that people they considered friends had signed that statement I don't remember them suggesting that trans activists were thanking their good fortune that a bigot had happened along at the right moment to cause a stink.

But anyhow I can't help but notice, once again, that you're doing your best to divert any mention of bad behaviour by "gender critical feminists" into discussion about bad behaviour by trans activists here. Seems a bit of a trend with you this, Andy. It's almost as though you're only really interested in demanding that one side show any contrition or improve their behaviour.

 

[smokedout]

Am I the only one who is struggling to see why the 'temporary suspension in order to prevent possible harm to the Party’s reputation’ (not expulsion, and not explicitly for transphobia) of a member of the Green Party is being discussed on the Anarchist Bookfair thread? Apart from smokedout's dishonest and disingenuous attempt to shoehorn it in here, of course.

It would make more sense to include in the "Why the Green Party is shit" thread, TBH

For fucks sake she was one of the key people involved in the incident that this thread has spent pages discussing. I'm not claiming it's a massive smoking gun, but the fact she's just been confronted for transphobia by her own party is something I thought might be of interest to those following this debate.

 

[smokedout]

My recollection is that that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others..

The thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate (none by me btw). You seem very keen to only tell one side of the story.

 

[Athos]

The thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate (none by me btw). You seem very keen to only tell one side of the story.

How do you know that?

 

[smokedout]

Because thats what FridgeMagnet said at the time.

 

[Athos]

Because thats what FridgeMagnet said at the time.

Where did he mention reported posts from people on both sides?

 

[smokedout]

Where did he mention reported posts from people on both sides?

On the thread that was locked as far as I can recall, I cant be arsed to check, but he certainly didn't say the thread was locked because of "the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others."

 

[Athos]

On the thread that was locked as far as I can recall, I cant be arsed to check, but he certainly didn't say the thread was locked because of "the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others."

He didn't. He posted seven short posts on that thread, and I checked them all. I think this is another example of you being a bit 'flexible' with the truth.

 

[smmudge]

He didn't. He posted seven short posts on that thread, and I checked them all. I think this is another example of you being a bit 'flexible' with the truth.

Do you have evidence that this was why the thread was locked?:

My recollection is that that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout and a few others.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The thread was locked because of all the continuing abuse and personal attacks on it, and there were a very large number of reported posts, from all “sides”.

 

[Athos]

Do you have evidence that this was why the thread was locked?:

No. But I didn't make any such claim.

 

[Rob Ray]

No you just let someone else claim it was down to one side's bad behaviour then accused smokedout of being a liar for suggesting otherwise.

 

[ska invita]

 

[Shechemite]

No you just let someone else claim it was down to one side's bad behaviour then accused smokedout of being a liar for suggesting otherwise.

He *let* them?

 

[Rob Ray]

As in of the two assertions made by andysays and smokedout, one being "that thread was locked because of the usual accusations of transphobia against more or less anyone who disagreed with smokedout" and the other being "the thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate", Athos only challenged smokedout as being unevidenced/dishonest.

 

[Athos]

No you just let someone else claim it was down to one side's bad behaviour then accused smokedout of being a liar for suggesting otherwise.

It's not up to me to 'let' anyone do anything. I never endorsed Andysays' recollection.

Smokedout claimed something (i.e. that FM said on that thread that the reason for its closure was reports from both sides) that was demonstrably untrue. He said no such thing, there (though he has done on this thread, since Smokedout's claim).

 

[Rob Ray]

But Andysays did so far more egregiously - as in he was not only unevidenced but actively misrepresented the situation and had to be corrected by a mod - which was specifically what smokedout had been replying to, yet there was unaccountably tumbleweed from you on that side of it. Why is that?

 

[Athos]

But Andysays did so far more egregiously - as in he was not only unevidenced but actively misrepresented the situation and had to be corrected by a mod - yet there was unaccountably tumbleweed from your end. Why is that?

Because what Andysays was far more equivocal than what Smokedout did. The former talked about his recollection, whereas the latter asserted facts, and continued to make more detailed dishonest claims when asked for any evidence. (Though I notice you very precisely selected and edited the quotes to conceal that fact in your previous post.)

 

[Rob Ray]

I didn't "precisely" snip other than to highlight the active part of the assertions made (and honestly we're both old enough here I think to know that "to my recollection" is no kind of shield when making accusations against other people), but nice try.

Yes I note that equivocation seems to be a theme here.

 

[Athos]

I didn't "precisely" snip other than to highlight the active part of the assertions made (and honestly we're both old enough here I think to know that "to my recollection" is no kind of shield when making accusations against other people), but nice try.

Yes I note that equivocation seems to be a theme here.

Well, we can agree to disagree about the significance of the words you edited out, and your motive for doing so.

 

[Rob Ray]

Well it'd fit with your approach to the rest of this thread. Honestly watching you, MiB and andy wriggling around throwing inaccuracies, slurs and bluster about while trying to find reasons to slag people off for "dishonesty" has been thoroughly unpleasant. LIke I dunno if smokedout is as prone to lying as you say, but if so I don't think there's many legs to stand on from the above.

Edit: On which note, I think I'm out. I mentioned being on this thread to a friend and they urged me to avoid like the plague, and for the sake of a better, happier life I reckon I'll take that advice.

 

[Athos]

Well it'd fit with your approach to the rest of this thread. Honestly watching you, MiB and andy wriggling around throwing inaccuracies, slurs and bluster about while trying to find reasons to slag people off for "dishonesty" has been thoroughly unpleasant. LIke I dunno if smokedout is as prone to lying as you say, but if so I don't think there's many legs to stand on from the above.

Please give some examples of any inaccuracies you think I've posted on this thread.

That what Smokedout claimed was untrue is beyond doubt. FM simply didn't say what Smokedout claimed he did. From many interactions with them, that's their MO.

ETA: just seen your edit, which I guess means you won't back up your claim - slurs and bluster, indeed.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

The thread was locked because of relentless reported posts from people on both sides of the debate (none by me btw).

The thread was locked because of all the continuing abuse and personal attacks on it, and there were a very large number of reported posts, from all “sides”.

I am struggling to see the issue with this now and am not really enjoying all the he said / she said cross examination japes.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Similarly it think it's fair enough for smokedout to post a link about the continuing anti-trans actions of one of the bookfair leafletters. I can't be arsed to read threads on here about the Green Party so I wouldn't see it there.

It could be relevant if the bookfair happens again as I assume there is a fair chance that said person would try to do it all again.

 

[Wilf]

So I think this goes some of the way to my uneasiness about "ID Pol" as a term of criticism. It's way too broad and nebulous imv, as privilege theory and intersectional theory both have elements which are useful and elements which can be (and are) misused either deliberately or no. Yes there's a lot of stupid shit goes on (eg. the oppression Olympics) but that's true of any social trend or political tendency - pillocks will be pillocks right? Intersectionality as talked about by Bell Hooks and Patricia Collins for example has a lot of interesting things to say.

Sorry, belated reply. Yes, I think I overstated it and over generalised. I still see ID pols as a term of criticism, but it's important to think about the 'good bits' as well. My focus is on the context and type of politics that identity operates in. There's the potential to think about identity in a more nuanced and reflective way, but in the context of a wider political economy, aka class politics. But what's depressing about this is that it doesn't get anywhere near solidarity and it does have elements of call out culture and the worst manoeuvres of postmodern ID pols. I'll admit I'm only going off reports, on this thread particularly, but the News From Nowhere thing was depressing.

Comparisons have been made about transphobia and racism being equivalent or being things to be equally opposed. At one level I'll make the obvious point that transphobia should be opposed - within the movement(s) and without. Some gruesome (anti-trans) comments have been reported, seen in debates and the like. I also see no political point in saying things like 'trans women are not real women' regardless of any theoretical/philosophical positions people might take on nature/identity. But I just feel it's reasonable to listen to (yes, that phrase again ) serious women's campaigners who might have things to say about the impact on longstanding struggles feminist struggles. I might not even agree with those feminists, but it just seems like a difficult debate about people's real lives and experiences. Not something to be treated as a zero sum game. Again, I suppose I end up at the same point: ID pols as practised on this doesn't have the potential to create solidarity.

 

[andysays]

Similarly it think it's fair enough for smokedout to post a link about the continuing anti-trans actions of one of the bookfair leafletters. I can't be arsed to read threads on here about the Green Party so I wouldn't see it there.

It could be relevant if the bookfair happens again as I assume there is a fair chance that said person would try to do it all again.

Assuming this person does attempt to attend a hypothetical future Bookfair what do people think the organisers response should be?

 

[Pickman's model]

Assuming this person does attempt to attend a hypothetical future Bookfair what do people think the organisers response should be?

short, sharp and decisive

 

[smmudge]

No. But I didn't make any such claim.

So you see no reason to challenge andysays' account of the thread closing (it's fine for people to think that) but you choose instead to challenge smokedout's version, which is a complete fabrication for some reason and only by sheer coincidence is it actually true (fuck you Occam).

I think I see your problem Athos, your bullshit-ometer needs some serious recalibration.

 

[belboid]

So you see no reason to challenge andysays' account of the thread closing (it's fine for people to think that) but you choose instead to challenge smokedout's version, which is a complete fabrication for some reason and only by sheer coincidence is it actually true (fuck you Occam).

I think I see your problem Athos, your bullshit-ometer needs some serious recalibration.

It’s a bit of a habit of his, to slate one side then pretend he is being even handed. Happened throughout the closed thread.