Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

shit MANarchists say

the organisational questions were posed in terms of safety - the whole idea of risk-assessing an NCAFC demo is pretty absurd you have to admit. and refusing to put on coaches to support it was a downright sin.
 
There's a basic duty of care to make sure that their members know where they're going and what to expect, surely?
 
i think there's a basic duty to support effective campaigns which are not always 'safe' (if you want them to achieve anything, anyway). there is however a new breed of identity politics politician, the above former SU prez being one of them, who see 'accessibility' or 'safety issues' as enough of a reason to cancel campaigns for everyone. two years ago, for instance, an occupation at Sheffield University basically shut itself down after occupying a basement level lecture theatre in the Arts Tower, and deciding without prompt from the authorities that potentially if management cut the power to the lift it would be an inaccessible space for those in wheelchairs and thus unacceptable as an occupied area. unfortunately however their were no convenient ground-floor level lecture theatres to occupy and University security was obviously on red alert having had one of their rooms occupied already. it lasted about a week and a half before exhausting itself and its dwindling attendants with this issue and collapsing.
 
also the first thing passed at all these occupations was a 'safe spaces' policy, reinforcing the hyper-sensitive and reactionary crap we've talked about earlier on this thread... did you ever see Occupy London's policy?

1. Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.
2. Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries, always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.
3. Be aware of the space you take up and the positions and privileges you bring, including racial, class and gender privilege.
4. Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants.
5. Recognize that we try not to judge, put each other down or compete.
6. Be aware of the language you use in discussion and how you relate to others. Try to speak slowly and clearly and use uncomplicated language.
7. The group endeavors as much as is feasible to ensure that meeting spaces are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people.
8. Foster a spirit of mutual respect: Listen to the wisdom everyone brings to the group.
9. Give each person the time and space to speak. In large groups, or for groups using facilitation: Raise your hand to speak.
10. “Respect the person; challenge their behaviour.”
11. If someone violates these agreements a discussion or mediation process can happen, depending on the wishes of the person who was violated. If a serious violation happens to the extent that someone feels unsafe, they can be asked to leave the space and/or speak with a person or process nominated by those present.
12. Whilst ground rules are collective responsibility everyone is also personally responsible for their own behaviour.
13. Occupy London is an alcohol and drugs free space.
Click to expand...
This wishy washy crap gets everywhere... and it paralyzed most of the student occupations believe me
 
cesare said:
He's already linked an article to her.
Click to expand...

So is it OK to name "Reni Eddo-Lodge is a student on the Guardian's positive action scheme"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/10/a-level-grade-state-students-excluded

Now a freelancer for the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/29/rowan-williams-identity-politics-panel
"Liberation doesn't damage society. Privilege denying does. People of every sexuality, gender, race and creed need to recognise that the fight for equality is one we all have to take responsibility for. The politics of the people is nothing if it doesn't include all the people."
 
Das Uberdog said:
i would point out that she wasn't the author of the original quote defending scabs, though she did support it
Click to expand...

That's crucially important you can't slander someone on the basis of something they haven't said.

It sounds like middle-class student tantrums, depressing and unhelpful, but not indicative of a wider shift.
 
i never said she said it, just making that more clear now we're using her name

ETA and what makes it indicative of a broader shift is her significant place as a voice of the 'student movement'... i can bring you thousands more examples seriously, all over the place. the shift is well and truly there and what's worse it's legally empowered through a lot of access and vaguely worded anti-prejudice policy which has already been passed
 
Das Uberdog said:
i never said she said it, just making that more clear now we're using her name

ETA and what makes it indicative of a broader shift is her significant place as a voice of the 'student movement'... i can bring you thousands more examples seriously, all over the place. the shift is well and truly there and what's worse it's legally empowered through a lot of access and vaguely worded anti-prejudice policy which has already been passed
Click to expand...

Here's how it looks to me: Fear as in people being afraid but unwilling to admit. I am afraid. Others are afraid. People see long prison sentences for the student demos of 2010-11, they see a 6-month sentence for swimming, they see years for taking jeans from an already smashed up shop. But instead of admit the fear, they try to cover it up as if they are helping disabled people. It's easier to say 'we are helping disabled people' rather than 'we are cowards'.
 
Let's not forget the scabs who are just trying to raise money to send their kid to London to audition for ballet school.
 
sihhi said:
Here's how it looks to me: Fear as in people being afraid but unwilling to admit. I am afraid. Others are afraid. People see long prison sentences for the student demos of 2010-11, they see a 6-month sentence for swimming, they see years for taking jeans from an already smashed up shop. But instead of admit the fear, they try to cover it up as if they are helping disabled people. It's easier to say 'we are helping disabled people' rather than 'we are cowards'.
Click to expand...
Also, add in a bit of beating around the bush "politeness" instead of just saying something along the lines of "look you shambolic bunch of wasters, if you can't fucking get your act together and even tell us the route of this demo so we can make sure we've got parking/access/toilets etc for the students with disabilities, we can't organise it this end. So sort yourselves out!"
 
sihhi said:
That's crucially important you can't slander someone on the basis of something they haven't said.

It sounds like middle-class student tantrums, depressing and unhelpful, but not indicative of a wider shift.
Click to expand...
I thought we'd already talked about whether this manarchist business was indicative of a wider shift earlier in the thread, and the general consensus was probably not.

Or have I misunderstood?
 
Das Uberdog said:
also the first thing passed at all these occupations was a 'safe spaces' policy, reinforcing the hyper-sensitive and reactionary crap we've talked about earlier on this thread... did you ever see Occupy London's policy?


This wishy washy crap gets everywhere... and it paralyzed most of the student occupations believe me
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the one you highlighted? Actually, revol's already explained that to you earlier in the thread.
 
cesare said:
What's wrong with the one you highlighted? Actually, revol's already explained that to you earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

what does 'emotional boundaries' mean? in my experience, it can regularly be interpreted as far as disagreeing on any level with a self-identifying disabled queer vegan on pretty much any issue, and often makes them feel as 'unsafe' in your presence as if you'd attacked them with a baseball bat
 
cesare said:
I thought we'd already talked about whether this manarchist business was indicative of a wider shift earlier in the thread, and the general consensus was probably not.

Or have I misunderstood?
Click to expand...

certain posters keep saying it's not indicative of a wider shift despite mounting evidence of its existence to the contrary, but i don't think a consensus has been reached
 
Das Uberdog said:
certain posters keep saying it's not indicative of a wider shift despite mounting evidence of its existence to the contrary, but i don't think a consensus has been reached
Click to expand...
The only "mounting evidence" (to the extent that you consider those two clips to be evidence) so far is being supplied by you, and you've already accepted you've got a personal beef with it all.
 
as did you. anyway, it's not all supplied by me - we've already seen Manchester AF adopting these platforms alongside several other posters recounting their own scenarios. and - sorry if pointing out numerous examples of where these features are embedding themselves within established structures of the political youth movement doesn't convince you - as opposed to folks dawdling along the thread, broadly agreeing with the criticisms being made but then without any particular basis declaring that it's probably not much of an issue.

i wouldn't be so pissed off with it if it wasn't growing and strangling everything potentially productive it came into contact with
 
Das Uberdog said:
what does 'emotional boundaries' mean? in my experience, it can regularly be interpreted as far as disagreeing on any level with a self-identifying disabled queer vegan on pretty much any issue, and often makes them feel as 'unsafe' in your presence as if you'd attacked them with a baseball bat
Click to expand...
This has happened to you, personally? What were you disagreeing about?
 
Das Uberdog said:
as did you. anyway, it's not all supplied by me - we've already seen Manchester AF adopting these platforms alongside several other posters recounting their own scenarios. and - sorry if pointing out numerous examples of where these features are embedding themselves within established structures of the political youth movement doesn't convince you - as opposed to folks dawdling along the thread, broadly agreeing with the criticisms being made but then without any particular basis declaring that it's probably not much of an issue.

i wouldn't be so pissed off with it if it wasn't growing and strangling everything potentially productive it came into contact with
Click to expand...
As did I what?
 
Das Uberdog said:
as did you. anyway, it's not all supplied by me - we've already seen Manchester AF adopting these platforms alongside several other posters recounting their own scenarios. and - sorry if pointing out numerous examples of where these features are embedding themselves within established structures of the political youth movement doesn't convince you - as opposed to folks dawdling along the thread, broadly agreeing with the criticisms being made but then without any particular basis declaring that it's probably not much of an issue.

i wouldn't be so pissed off with it if it wasn't growing and strangling everything potentially productive it came into contact with
Click to expand...
Manchester AF did not 'adopt these platforms'!
 
the most regular argument in which it happens is usually over whether or not the use of the word 'cunt' as an insult should be a massive political sticking-point as to whether or not someone is incorrigibly sexist - note the argument is already biased against the person arguing against a hysterical over-reaction to naughty words by the fact that their opponent has already decided the issue itself is intrinsically sexist, threatening, etc, and so broaching it on any level is an emotional transgression too far to bear
 
Das Uberdog said:
the most regular argument in which it happens is usually over whether or not the use of the word 'cunt' as an insult should be a massive political sticking-point as to whether or not someone is incorrigibly sexist - note the argument is already biased against the person arguing against a hysterical over-reaction to naughty words by the fact that their opponent has already decided the issue itself is intrinsically sexist, threatening, etc, and so broaching it on any level is an emotional transgression too far to bear
Click to expand...
Christ, that argument's as old as the bloody hills. Nothing to do with "manarchism".
 
ok, an Afed initiative at the Anarchist Boot Fair 'examining privilege theory as a new starting point' then. still indicative of changing waters no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Demonstrate this Wednesday, say no to cuts in Lambeth!
Replies
0
Views
560
One_Stop_Shop
O
T
Say hello & give your support to RMT members on Friday 29 Oct
Replies
2
Views
504
where to
W
R
protests may be banned altogether says Met chief.
Replies
26
Views
2K
audiotech
audiotech
bluestreak
Say no to a market-based NHS
Replies
0
Views
338
bluestreak
bluestreak
B
G20 'media's fault' says Scotland Yard
Replies
8
Views
643
taffboy gwyrdd
taffboy gwyrdd
Back
Top Bottom