Serious WTF; I dunno what to do (irl rape apologist).

[Salyut]

So I went to the local anarchist reading circle tonight...and shit got weird.

This guy had come the last time I showed up, and gave off these really creepy/weird vibes. He showed up again tonight. Two people are discussing this book on feminism (forget the name) and labiaplasty gets mentioned. $creepyfuck starts off on the variety of labia he's seen in the course of his "porn research". Collective WTF moment was had by everyone.

Anywaywe got around to discussing this zine right? (http://paperlined.org/apps/isms/Learning_Good_Consent/index.html) It wasn't like shit could get any weirder/uncomfortable then it already was right?

I was so very totally fucking wrong. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUH3JQjcweM)

$creepyfuck launches into this...really fucking weird rape apologist spiel. I'm not exaggerating this shit:

1. All people are inherently innocent (including rapists); and rapists are actually "raping the dress" and don't intend to hurt the victim.
2. The television is constantly telling people to rape.
3. Everyone is being raped by society...or something. He started gibbering about Sovereign Citizens at one point. Totally nonsensical.
4. Naked person on beach and they aren't moving? Totally alright to have sex with them. At this point it was subtly suggested that he STFU.
5. Anarchism = everyone consents to everything. Seriously.

My first thought was to fuck his shit up - but the Infoshop people probably wouldn't be cool with that. No idea at the time if confronting him directly was a good idea; so I stuck to interrupting his gibbering and calling him on stuff (this didn't stop him but it disrupted his ranting)*. It was really fucking creepy.

Anyway, to get to the point... There is a feminism discussion group thing tomorrow I'm going to and I suspect he'll be there as well. He seems to be severely mentally ill and has a history of disrupting the group to the point where it has had to be shut down early (they can't ban him because its a non-hierarchal collective...I dunno wtf). I'm not letting him get away with this shit again; but am I supposed to let him off easy because he's ill? I've never been in this situation before and I really don't know what the fuck to do.

*There were four of us total and it didn't seem safe to antagonize this guy (edit: he started going on about spree killers and how he reads their manifestos at one point). All I have are steel toed boots and my fists - I got fuck all to use in self-defense beyond that. More people should turn up tomorrow so...

[Manic Impressive]

can't you call for a vote to ban him from meetings? a majority vote cannot be seen as hierarchical. And yeah he sounds like he needs to be on meds

[Salyut]

can't you call for a vote to ban him from meetings? a majority vote cannot be seen as hierarchical. And yeah he sounds like he needs to be on meds

I don't belong to the collective (being a Left Com), and I'm not really sure why they haven't done that. I'll mention it tomorrow - but I suspect the problem comes down to enforcement and police involvement.

[bezdomni]

can't ban him because its a non-hierarchal collective

Well, there's your problem! This guy is a waste of time at best, a liability at worst You don't want your org associated with that crazy guy who is a rape apologist (or that guy who killed all those people..), what little credibility there is to be had goes down the gutter and police/FBI gets all up in your shit.

It is within the organization's best interest to keep away from people like this guy. They are a bad situation waiting to happen.

How is it against your *craaazy* anarchist principles to ban the guy provided a consensus is reached?

Have you tried yelling at him to GTFO? There's no need to physically beat the poor idiot, just make it clear his bullshit isn't desired.

[Q]

I agree with above posters. Like I said in chat:


[08:06:04] <Q> "they can't ban him because its a non-hierarchal collective..."
[08:06:06] <Q> how silly
[08:06:29] <Q> I'd tell him to gtfo or I'd "kindly" show him the way out
[08:07:58] <Q> and if the group wasn't ok with that, then I guess that it wasn't my type of group

[Salyut]

Have you tried yelling at him to GTFO? There's no need to physically beat the poor idiot, just make it clear his bullshit isn't desired.

That would be ideal assuming he actually gets the fuck out. This is only the second reading thing I've gone to - not sure I really have the right to do that.


How is it against your *craaazy* anarchist principles to ban the guy provided a consensus is reached?

anarcho-trot entryism

[Property Is Robbery]

He's probably mentally ill but he's probably also a rapist. If you're not opposed to violence kick his ass. The cops won't do shit

[Salyut]

He's probably mentally ill but he's probably also a rapist.

he also used himself having sex with one of the cartoon boys on the cover of the zine as a example for some consent thing at one point

:|

[Minima]

I was going to quip that this was a brilliant performance artist/troll to break up your anarchist circle, but this seems a little beyond contrivance. It's so bizarre it must be for real.

1) (you have probably done this to some degree) Politely ask him what his point is, ask him to draw the conclusions from the points he makes, and then defeat him soundly, kindly tell him to leave. (assuming he's not completely insane)

or maybe, not so politely 2) have someone troll the guy out, pretend to argue for a hypothetical situation where consent is supposedly given, and then when he agrees, exaggerate until he's totally cornered, (totally comes out as a full fledged rape apologist) and then lay out a crushing argument against rape, on anarchist principals, (help me out here guys) the group should then be able to harness the momentum to deal properly with the individual.

3) a way to get an authority involved without getting the group explictly involved/implicated/associated to avoid bad press would to be to get anyone (maybe you) who feels threatened or intimidated like maybe a former rape victim, to make a personal complaint of harassment, (if at all justified) (say they are following them to meetings) and i am sure your group members will testify. He'll probably have a background...

4) change the location of your next meeting

[Spawn of Stalin]

This is only the second reading thing I've gone to - not sure I really have the right to do that.
Course you do, it's a non-hierarchical collective and you are a sovereign citizen! You have a right to do whatever the fuck you want. Or, as Minima suggested, invite a rape victim along one evening. But to be perfectly honest it sounds like he needs a good kicking. That kind of talk should not be tolerated anywhere ever. Just ask him how he would feel about your fist raping his face, he'll get the message.

[El Chuncho]

$creepyfuck launches into this...really fucking weird rape apologist spiel. I'm not exaggerating this shit:

1. All people are inherently innocent (including rapists); and rapists are actually "raping the dress" and don't intend to hurt the victim.
2. The television is constantly telling people to rape.
3. Everyone is being raped by society...or something. He started gibbering about Sovereign Citizens at one point. Totally nonsensical.
4. Naked person on beach and they aren't moving? Totally alright to have sex with them. At this point it was subtly suggested that he STFU.
5. Anarchism = everyone consents to everything. Seriously.



Anyway, to get to the point... There is a feminism discussion group thing tomorrow I'm going to and I suspect he'll be there as well. He seems to be severely mentally ill and has a history of disrupting the group to the point where it has had to be shut down early (they can't ban him because its a non-hierarchal collective...I dunno wtf). I'm not letting him get away with this shit again; but am I supposed to let him off easy because he's ill? I've never been in this situation before and I really don't know what the fuck to do.



You have much diversity in the left and many ''bad apples'', I have met many RAANists etc. who have defended paedophilia (or ''the sexual liberation of children'') too, so I know what you mean. As some others have said, get the group to

http://www.wordpress-plugin-solution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ban_hammer.jpg

him.

[Sasha]

it is and should be an watershed test for the group.
if they are not willing to deal with the dude out of cowardice hiding behind their anti-hierarchy the group id not worth your time.
an non-hierachal collective doesn't mean an absolve from responsibility, it means the opposite, if the group cant take its collective responsibility in this they better stop dabbing in "anarchism" already

[praxis1966]

I gotta say my head's with Psycho but my heart's with Spawn of Stalin.

I'm reminded of a certain quote from the Farva character in Super Troopers: http://www.hark.com/clips/jszldxncsp-want-me-to-punchisize-your-face-for-free

[Vendetta]

I'm reminded of a certain quote from the Farva character in Super Troopers: http://www.hark.com/clips/jszldxncsp-want-me-to-punchisize-your-face-for-free

Is it possible to download clips from that site? For ringtones n such?

[praxis1966]

I honestly have no idea... That's just the back end of a 2 second Google search, lulz.

[Vendetta]

Dammit. I've known about that site for a while, but can't find any downloadable stuff.

[Ele'ill]

Consider the next meeting you have with this collective (talk with them beforehand) a time to practice tactics to get rid of people like this guy. I don't think it's likely they're trolling but you'd be able to tell by offering to video tape them explaining their 'rape apologist' position- if they're trolling they're gonna balk.

It depends on where the collective meetings are being held. If they're being held in a building rented or 'owned' by the collective ask this person to leave. If they say 'ok, but why?' - explain why their position is offensive and dangerous as well as harmful to those who may have been raped/sexually assaulted. If they say 'no, I'm not going anywhere' - you know what you have to do. People don't think they can or 'have the right' to militantly defend safe spaces from rapists and such? Think again.

[Rooster]

Is it possible to download clips from that site? For ringtones n such?

You can get an app for mozilla firefox called DownloadHelper which allows you to rip stuff from web pages.

[Salyut]

Consider the next meeting you have with this collective (talk with them beforehand) a time to practice tactics to get rid of people like this guy. I don't think it's likely they're trolling but you'd be able to tell by offering to video tape them explaining their 'rape apologist' position- if they're trolling they're gonna balk.

It depends on where the collective meetings are being held. If they're being held in a building rented or 'owned' by the collective ask this person to leave. If they say 'ok, but why?' - explain why their position is offensive and dangerous as well as harmful to those who may have been raped/sexually assaulted. If they say 'no, I'm not going anywhere' - you know what you have to do. People don't think they can or 'have the right' to militantly defend safe spaces from rapists and such? Think again.

Gonna see if I can do this tonight. Pretty sure he wasn't trolling because he kept defending his position with more...stuff.

Had a longer, better post but Firefox ate it. They seem like a pretty decent group - I suspect
they don't know wtf to do either (herp derp inclusive community space derp).

[Salyut]

Recording the readings for a podcast might work. Either it'd drive him away or at least record his shit for proof of unsafe-space...ness. Plus it would be useful if you wabtedto catch up...

[Summerspeaker]

I wish I could say I was surprised. These sorts of people seem to be drawn to radical circles for some reason. To an extent I think they've just absorbed the dominant culture of dude supremacy without grasping the obfuscating bullshit used to make that ideology seem acceptable. The socially adept rapists and rape apologists constitute more of a threat. We had (have?) a milder version of this at Food Not Bombs here. At the level you're talking about, I suggest asking them to leave. If necessary, just get a bunch of bodies together and demand it. This doesn't have to be violent in the sense that anyone gets hurt - most folks get the idea quickly enough.

[praxis1966]

I wish I could say I was surprised. These sorts of people seem to be drawn to radical circles for some reason. To an extent I think they've just absorbed the dominant culture of dude supremacy without grasping the obfuscating bullshit used to make that ideology seem acceptable. The socially adept rapists and rape apologists constitute more of a threat. We had (have?) a milder version of this at Food Not Bombs here. At the level you're talking about, I suggest asking them to leave. If necessary, just get a bunch of bodies together and demand it. This doesn't have to be violent in the sense that anyone gets hurt - most folks get the idea quickly enough.

I think that's the nature of the beast with this kind of grassroots organizing, though. You want to be as inclusive as you can so you make sure and let everybody know, "Hey, tell your friends, all are welcome." The truth is that they're not nor should they be. I'm not talking about some abstractionist position on the respectability of becoming isolationist... in other words, this ain't an exercise... but on this particular group's ability to actually be revolutionary leftists. That is to say, do they have the courage of their convictions when it comes to actually excising themselves of reactionary tendencies? After all, if they continue to include this person in their group, they are by default tacitly endorsing his positions... and maybe that's the way Salyut should pitch it to them.

For what it's worth, I've been at functions on private property where some conspiracy wierdo showed up with a camera shouting, "This is the face of violent communism!" and the like. Nobody, and I mean nobody, felt at all hypocritical about getting the convention center's security involved (and by implication invoking private property laws) to ask them to leave and neither should the folks the OP is talking about. By any means necessary, as Malcolm would say.

EDIT: For the record, I do realize all I'm doing is restating in longhand the laconic tidiness of Psycho's post, but I really do think he's right.

[Decolonize The Left]

So I went to the local anarchist reading circle tonight...and shit got weird.

This guy had come the last time I showed up, and gave off these really creepy/weird vibes. He showed up again tonight. Two people are discussing this book on feminism (forget the name) and labiaplasty gets mentioned. $creepyfuck starts off on the variety of labia he's seen in the course of his "porn research". Collective WTF moment was had by everyone.

Anywaywe got around to discussing this zine right? (http://paperlined.org/apps/isms/Learning_Good_Consent/index.html) It wasn't like shit could get any weirder/uncomfortable then it already was right?

I was so very totally fucking wrong. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUH3JQjcweM)

$creepyfuck launches into this...really fucking weird rape apologist spiel. I'm not exaggerating this shit:

1. All people are inherently innocent (including rapists); and rapists are actually "raping the dress" and don't intend to hurt the victim.
2. The television is constantly telling people to rape.
3. Everyone is being raped by society...or something. He started gibbering about Sovereign Citizens at one point. Totally nonsensical.
4. Naked person on beach and they aren't moving? Totally alright to have sex with them. At this point it was subtly suggested that he STFU.
5. Anarchism = everyone consents to everything. Seriously.

My first thought was to fuck his shit up - but the Infoshop people probably wouldn't be cool with that. No idea at the time if confronting him directly was a good idea; so I stuck to interrupting his gibbering and calling him on stuff (this didn't stop him but it disrupted his ranting)*. It was really fucking creepy.

Anyway, to get to the point... There is a feminism discussion group thing tomorrow I'm going to and I suspect he'll be there as well. He seems to be severely mentally ill and has a history of disrupting the group to the point where it has had to be shut down early (they can't ban him because its a non-hierarchal collective...I dunno wtf). I'm not letting him get away with this shit again; but am I supposed to let him off easy because he's ill? I've never been in this situation before and I really don't know what the fuck to do.

*There were four of us total and it didn't seem safe to antagonize this guy (edit: he started going on about spree killers and how he reads their manifestos at one point). All I have are steel toed boots and my fists - I got fuck all to use in self-defense beyond that. More people should turn up tomorrow so...

If this happens again there are simple steps you need to take:
1. Stop it right when it starts. Stand up and tell the group that this sort of shit is unacceptable. Refer to the previous meeting and state that it's not remotely alright to validate and/or encourage rape/murder/etc...
2. With this in the open, ask whether or not others feel the same.
3. They should, so then ask the guy if he can accept this reality and keep that sort of shit to himself.
4. If he can, you're cool. If not, then propose that he leave.
5. If he does, it's all good. If not, then you've got numbers.

Do not let him defend himself and continue ranting about whatever. Do not let him have the floor. Do not let him change the subject and do not let the subject be changed.
No need to think too hard about anything, it's all real simple.

- August

[Salyut]

If this happens again there are simple steps you need to take:
1. Stop it right when it starts. Stand up and tell the group that this sort of shit is unacceptable. Refer to the previous meeting and state that it's not remotely alright to validate and/or encourage rape/murder/etc...
2. With this in the open, ask whether or not others feel the same.
3. They should, so then ask the guy if he can accept this reality and keep that sort of shit to himself.
4. If he can, you're cool. If not, then propose that he leave.
5. If he does, it's all good. If not, then you've got numbers.

Do not let him defend himself and continue ranting about whatever. Do not let him have the floor. Do not let him change the subject and do not let the subject be changed.
No need to think too hard about anything, it's all real simple.

- August

Writing these down and putting them in my pocket.

[Decolonize The Left]

Writing these down and putting them in my pocket.

Good. Remember to be calm, confident and serious. This sort of shit isn't acceptable and you are simply doing what others have failed to do. Keep it short and simple - everyone will be happier in the end.

Good luck.

- August

[ellipsis]

can't you call for a vote to ban him from meetings? a majority vote cannot be seen as hierarchical. And yeah he sounds like he needs to be on meds

Majority rule is hierachical, one group get's their "way" ABOVE the "way" of everybody else.

[ellipsis]

Also we had a similar situation at a recent anarchist Salon. This guy who has been around a while but always is chilling quietly, random interupts the discussion twice, first to accuse somebody of "coughing on him", even though he himself was clearing his throat the entire time, the second time to call the same dude a fag. people told him he couldn't use that word , then he claimed he was being sexually harrassed by a gay dude. he was told to leave and escorted out.

[Salyut]

Just got back. I kept my eye on him the entire session*; aside from complaining that women saw men as perverts (lololololololololololololololololololol ad infinitum), he basically STFU. I suspect it was because the crowd was larger then yesterday.

I talked to folks afterwards and it doesn't look like he will be a problem for much longer. Yesterday was the last straw; he had apparently said he'd do a reading the week before...brought in pro-pedo articles to read aloud (he hadn't told anyone what exactly he was going to be reading). I think a lot of the collective members aren't around to get together atm (I guess they wanted to figure this out as a group)...but now phone calls are being made. :thumbup1:


*Epic lulz resulted when one of the attendees introduced himself as a high school teacher ("teenage girls don't know enough about feminism derpderp")...and then admitted he put "I am a feminist" on his OkCupid profile and wanted to find out what it meant exactly. ...He left real early.

[Rusty Shackleford]

do this the next time he even looks at you

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBEnwRVRrCeWiC0Q6Q-zFyYNX_ZNYO7r-bCsuyHRwSyqdhs1YALA

[PhoenixAsh]

The idea of anarchy is that everybody can express themselves and its an inclusive ideology. Its a huge virtue. And its also a completely misunderstood virtue. Anarchy does not mean anybody can do what they want.

And advocating the violation of the autonomy of others is a line that is being crossed and its the duty and obligation of the group to protect itself and others from.

The idea that anarchy is anti-authoritarian is correct....the conclusion that this means that there are no rules is incorrect. The rules do not stem from the voice of the elite or the few...the rules stem from the protection of the induvidual against the oppression or violation of others (either from the majority or the few)....

And somebody who advocates that violation and is disruptive to a point where the group can no longer operate or be a safe place for people to meet and exchange ideas is oppression.

I think some users have expressed exactly what should be done: Engage in debate....and if that doesn't work escalation.
Confrontation of ideas. Deny platform. Request departure. Enforce departure. Enforce non renewed entry until somebody expresses he has learned that his or her opinions and ideas were wrong and why.

I read somewhere about getting the police involved...thats illogical. And I strongly disagree. We oppose authority and we police ourselves...since we do not want to rely on the authority we oppose to solve our problems...before we rely on outside aid we do it ourselves.

This is not isolation this is in fact protecting the open and safe nature of the group so everybody can enjoy and participate without feeling threatened.

[PhoenixAsh]

For what it's worth, I've been at functions on private property where some conspiracy wierdo showed up with a camera shouting, "This is the face of violent communism!" and the like. Nobody, and I mean nobody, felt at all hypocritical about getting the convention center's security involved (and by implication invoking private property laws) to ask them to leave and neither should the folks the OP is talking about. By any means necessary, as Malcolm would say.

I think this should be a last resort. If groups rely on the system to solve their problems we are not being anarchist and we are not learning how to solve problems in an anarchist society.

I realise that security is not the same as police but they are a watered down extention of them...and that sometimes there may be in rare cases no alternative...

I do not know the details or the particulars...so its not an attack...but I am wondering if the group could not have restrained the man, taken his camera and deleted the pictures and handing it back...before escorting him out the room and denying him further entry.

[bezdomni]

I read somewhere about getting the police involved...thats illogical. And I strongly disagree. We oppose authority and we police ourselves...since we do not want to rely on the authority we oppose to solve our problems...before we rely on outside aid we do it ourselves.

I said keeping a deranged rape apologist around who apparently reads serial killer's manifestos is a liability, because it is just asking to get the police/FBI all over you if this guy actually does something fucked up.

So my advice was to kick this guy out from meetings to prevent police from getting involved.

[PhoenixAsh]

I said keeping a deranged rape apologist around who apparently reads serial killer's manifestos is a liability, because it is just asking to get the police/FBI all over you if this guy actually does something fucked up.

So my advice was to kick this guy out from meetings to prevent police from getting involved.

No problem. I must have misunderstood. :thumbup1:

[praxis1966]

I do not know the details or the particulars...so its not an attack...but I am wondering if the group could not have restrained the man, taken his camera and deleted the pictures and handing it back...before escorting him out the room and denying him further entry.

I agree self-policing is the best policy as a general rule, but the truth is that our group [the IWW] wasn't the one running the convention. We were tabling at somebody else's gig so ultimately it wasn't up to us how to handle it. The way it was set up was such that we were tabling (along with several other groups) in a lobby just outside the entrance to the convention proper (it was being held at a rather large hotel). So I guess the whole thing can be chalked up to the fact that he didn't need a convention pass in order to harass us. Why he chose our group as opposed to one of the others is anybody's guess (he'd been in and out 3 or 4 times to argue with us prior to showing up with the camera). As an aside, I can't say that I'd fully blame the organization running the show... I don't have any idea what their leasing agreement with the hotel was like; it is a union hotel after all, so for all I know one of the stipulations of the contract could've said that they had to pay their people for security.

I can say this, though. We do have what our branch calls a "Chill with the Union" night once a month which is essentially an informal discussion group that's open to the public. I have to believe things would've been handled very differently if it had happened at an event like that.

In the final analysis, though, I was just making an analogy so Salyut didn't have to feel like he or his group were somehow being hypocritical for excluding the person in question if necessary...

[Vendetta]

Just kick him out...

[Summerspeaker]

I loudly echo anti-police sentiments. Even when you legitimately need them, they probably won't get there in time to do anything useful. Kicking people out ourselves might require effect and a little risk upfront, but it's safer in the long run. You never know what cops will do.

[praxis1966]

I loudly echo anti-police sentiments. Even when you legitimately need them, they probably won't get there in time to do anything useful. Kicking people out ourselves might require effect and a little risk upfront, but it's safer in the long run. You never know what cops will do.

Not to mention that the cops are gonna want to take a report, which means somebody has to give them their name, a description of the incident, and what the fuck you were all doing there in the first place.

[Wanted Man]

Majority rule is hierachical, one group get's their "way" ABOVE the "way" of everybody else.

Well if "everybody else" is the guy from this thread, then that sounds like a good hierarchy.