Authored by: biofilo on Thursday, March 06 2008 @ 05:23 PM CST

CrimethInc.--sounding "like a leftist legalistic nightmare" since... hm...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: HPWombat on Thursday, March 06 2008 @ 07:05 PM CST

You doubt? Read it. The bureaucratic language is dead life, the author is not special nor is the editor of Rolling Thunder, they should re-examine how they approach this issue if they are going to write about it in the context of liberating desire.

---
http://midwest.azone.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: biofilo on Thursday, March 06 2008 @ 09:47 PM CST

For one thing, Rolling Thunder has multiple editors. Dunno what you're
getting at about someone being "special."

For another, I disagree with you about the language in this text--it
seems clear the author is setting out to broaden the range of language
available for discussing this topic (e.g., "the perpetrator/survivor
language has many limitations," paragraph 5 following the terms). If you
feel the result is still too "bureaucratic" for your tastes, well, de gustibus
non est disputandum, but don't then argue this has nothing to do with
liberating desire--the process of liberating desire is going to involve a lot
of checking in with each other. If someone wants to liberate their
desires without keeping abreast of the desires and needs of those
around them, as far as I'm concerned that's not anarchist liberation.

Use whatever language works for you and the people you're
communicating with--there's no right or wrong language--but don't
dismiss communication and consent themselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: HPWombat on Thursday, March 06 2008 @ 10:46 PM CST

"Dunno what you're getting at about someone being "special.""

I mean that calling something crimethinc doesn't make them an authority on any issue, especially on the liberation of desire. Also should I care if I used a plural term or a singular term? How important is it to you that I know more than one person is responsible for this awlful article? Is it so no one can claim full responsibility? I think it shows a larger failure.

"it seems clear the author is setting out to broaden the range of language
available for discussing this topic (e.g., "the perpetrator/survivor
language has many limitations," paragraph 5 following the terms)."

It seems clear they are broadening the legal speak, they want to work with the jargon of sexual assault (an unlawful act) to define more issues as if the law weren't extensive enough. This is the wrong approach. We don't need this overdrawn language, we need goddamn insurrections. We cannot heal this society ruined by domination without them. A safe world now approach would recognize the limitations of creating a subcultural language as a major limitation to why such things are futile. The language now is alienating and overdrawn, this article does not help make it less so, but rather more so, with an expansion of criteria that must be educated for any individual to fuck. Justifying more pointless workshops? I thought we wanted less meetings and more real social interaction, which is what would be the real radical solution, true reciprocal knowledge exchanged and learned between individuals that want to bang out.

"If someone wants to liberate their
desires without keeping abreast of the desires and needs of those
around them, as far as I'm concerned that's not anarchist liberation."

Yeah, rape everyone, that's what I suggested. Get real, I'm not Eldridge Cleaver on acid.

"Use whatever language works for you and the people you're
communicating with--there's no right or wrong language--but don't
dismiss communication and consent themselves."

I think I was attacking how overdrawn the language was and how it was framed moralistically despite claiming it isn't.

---
http://midwest.azone.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: blackhand on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 09:33 AM CST

How was the article framed moralistically? It even brings up how "sexual assault" and the survivor/perpetrator dichotomy is limiting and potentially unnecessarily divisive.

In spite of the one line that says some behavior that is always unacceptable (and right after saying the survivor should classify the behavior according to their own standards), the article tries to break down right vs. wrong as abstract categories and instead emphasizes consent and desire as waypoints for examining experiences:

As every experience is unique, we should use language specific to each one, rather than attempting to force all our experiences into abstract categories; we can do so by describing each individually: as a deliberate boundary violation, for example, or as a decision in which consent was ambiguous.

Can you elaborate on what you find so legalistic? Or is any behavior that isn't impulsive too domesticated?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: HPWombat on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 01:07 PM CST

A welcome challenge blackhand. I'll attempt to define my criticisms more. First I will apologize for calling this article awful. This issue is a difficult one to take on and I must pause now to consider how I would approach these issues..

---
Listen to Radio Subvertista at cbusimc.org! Interested in Midwest and Great Lakes Regional Networking? Check out midwest.azone.org and launch your position pap

[ Reply to This | # ]