I-Don't-Bash-Back-I-Shoot-First

[BIXX]

The following essay was anonymously circulated amidst queer/anarchist circles in the Pacific Northwest. It is reproduced here in its entirety. Its initial circulation sparked much controversy among its readers. Here’s hoping for more!

I-Don’t-Bash-Back-I-Shoot-First

ON QUEER GANGS
*** First, let’s clear a few things up: Bash Back! is dead—old history. We’re still fucking its corpse, totally disinterested while the filthy body falls apart, starts to smell. Whatever. Here’s the real point: if at the moment of BB!’s disappearance this queer virus fails to spread, if we aren’t proliferating terribly, then we’re kidding ourselves, call what we experienced a death (despite our nihilist-woo-woo-insurecto fantasy’s)—if this is our case, then what we chose was to survive things as they are, making our peace~ even with noted bad attitude. Doing-Being Assimilation, by other means. And that cool, right? Jay/kay~ <3lulz<3~Fuck You, Fuck That Shit. If your making your peace we are enemies from the start—Get fucked. For whoever is still insatiable: your glee, hatred, and friends are waiting; so get your shit together and begin again. Crazy insurrecta-*****es had it right—but once or twice “affinity groups” are cheap shit—let’s get it constant. Some of us were stepping to that shit before the first convergence, and some of us have been rolling hard since, licking our lips at that “War” in Social War. Here are a few of our notes.

INSTEAD OF A THEORY
1. FIND EACH OTHER
*** We think that survival, fighting back and fucking shit up should be step one; getting food, finding shelter to live in, starting fights, staying fly, making people hurriedly cross the street, keeping het’s mouths shut, scamming hormones, networks to get the benefits of your crime where it should go, names of who needs to get smacked down, looking out for each other when we’re out escorting, taking from anyone in our way. Actively not giving a fuck means starting right in the thick of conflict, daily life, rather than going through the tired tradition of looking to meet people with a bunch of activists, keeping, teaching the poor unknowing queers and good citizens what they really need. This is about doing what we want right from the start—building the means to our autonomy for ourselves. Here’s the last argument anyone needs: Wouldn’t you have rather started your intro to anarchism-in-action off with a fly ass gang of queer criminals who’ve got your back, instead of of charity activists? Yeah, we fucking thought so.
*** Forming a crew is splitting off—its giving up the entire feel better, join the milieu, talk to hearts and minds, radical offsetting bullshit that the rest of anarchism is obsessed with. Learning to act means a coming together—fucking shit up, endlessly. But our splitting off seems to begin our contact with other people seem a little more like us, outside the anarchist circuit.
*** So. First things first, find some wild ass queers who wanna run amok—alternatively, queers who are sick of everything and full of cynicism. Simple enough—you’re almost certainly friends with a few of these, but assuming you don’t just look up and say “oh right that’s my crew” don’t fret, it’s not like it’s hard to find queers who can’t wait for a way to get back at the world. Plenty of us are getting fucked over constantly, and the only things people come to look forward to is their group-therapy meeting. Uuuugh. Something as simple as being those loud queer kids bring people from unexpected places.
*** Learn each other’s strengths and interests by hanging out together. Go everywhere with each other. Dance/sex parties like every week. Share your shit. Free time spent and carved out with each other might be the most important element in starting to speak to each other. Egg each other on, and support your friends—slowly, you will grow comfortable acting with each other, and responding to each other’s needs quickly—speaking means a few minutes till acting. Our coming together looks fly, and builds a common feeling along our sense of moving through the world. It’s this endearment to each other that builds trust, that teaches us how to say what we need, and get angry enough to go get it. Our bonds put us out of the grasp of people wanting to direct us away from each other, away from our needs and wants, trying to manage, regulate and make useful our hatred for everything. Instead, this bond puts us in a position to build our own power and autonomy.
*** Crew logic is different from everyday logic. You start stepping with an eye to how everything around you can be put to use for you and yours. Building your power is its own end, self-justifying—all the other political shit offered just get annoying,* engaging with it, boring. Fostering in common the ability to meet our needs and bring conflict on our terms will always remain obscured to our enemies and their confusion only fuels us on. Laughing hyena queerz. If you hate everything, fuck everything up. Hit back, make them hurt. Pointing out that are attracted to you when you bring force and win is anarchist heresy, apparently, but that’s soooo useless. Cause enough waves and they’ll come to you, or better by far, imitate you. “Affinity groups” only wish they could be as hot as us.
2. TAKE SPACE (& EVERYTHING)
*** Open hostility is the name of the game. When it’s you, and your friends, it only takes one thing to make things hectic. Those first nights out will be difficult, painful, and uncertain. Then things get interesting. Push come to shove, just start walking around in groups~you’re bound to find trouble. No snub should go unanswered, pushing bonds harder and harder, getting into conflict that offers no way out—not the least of it’s virtues. You might be nervous, you might get furious and wild out; either way, your crew will grow, your togetherness change, and you’ll be (more) ready for whatever.
*** Part of this will be the many ways you begin taking up space—with the outside world and with each other. We don’t pretend to know your situation or the best way for you to attack; so what we offer is a look at some key things distilled from out experience we think might be of use to you. So before going anywhere else with this writing, know that we respond to our situation primarily out of sense and intuition; there were plots, plans, and some ideas but we didn’t know where any of them would go, how they would play out; neither do you. Everything happens different in different context, be ready to shift. That said, here’s what we think is useful in any context: liberals exist, have money, and frequently want our hot social capital to legitimize their enterprises, socially of business-wise—in most cases, both. So free to turn, exploit, corrupt, use and dispose of* them to the ends of attacking domination and building your power.*
*** Squats are incredibly useful—as shelter, safe houses, or simply free space. Becoming a known spot for queer/trans* people to stay safely can fill up a space quick—one of the houses we were holding had up to forty people at one point. We just spread mats out and covered the floor. And we often find ourselves houseless or almost so, or barely able to cover rent or know other queer/trans* people in abusive situations—it’s good to be able to give someone (or ourselves) a way out. Creating a strategic network of spaces around your city opens up crazy possibilities, and if one spot gets raided, shutdown, evicted or whatever, you will already know another few places to go. Even if you’re not going to use a spot, someone else might. Getting into a place is pretty easy with a little practice (one memorable night we got into 12 empty houses before sunrise without any prior planning), and after you’ve opened a space you can spread the word out about where and how to get in to who needs it.
*** Also, bump keys. Important enough to get their own line. If you’re not familiar with them, look them up. They give you very quick access to a lot of places.
*** The way your crew attacks together will likely have a distinct character to it, one reflecting different strategies put into play ~ there are many different ways to practice/spread/live war. Here are some examples: they are reflections of our practice and lives not a program. Simplifying, different approaches could be said to be between open and visible forms, and closed and obscure forms. Again the best way to know what works for your context is to go by conversation, experience through experimentation, intuition, and your sense of what would work.
*** Open ties are visible. Take group strolls, pick fights, write up on walls, vandalize everything—especially people. Jump people, start parties, talk about how cops suck scams you know, and how boring straight cis people are; jump people into the conflict between sex in squats and wild dance parties. Be loud, obnoxious and annoying. Being seen from a block or two away—a similar style of dress may be adopted, or not. A way of flagging what you are down for might come into play—one group tied a pink bandanna over a black one to single that they were down to ride on someone. Walk into a store in groups of 10, fill your bags, make a mess and leave, dominate clubs and bars. Take over street corners, or wherever people can still congregate near you; enforce your spot as you please. Act wild, because you can—whatever is a rush. Live a presence built over time. When others see you, encourage them to set up their own group and support other sets.
*** Closed forms are much more obtuse and opaque. This doesn’t mean any less conflict, crime, corruption or any of that good shit, not cutting off your ability to act with other people against a common enemy, simply quieter forms, and very distinct in-group/out-group divides. Of course, this entails talking about your criminal shit in private only, learning to signal ever so subtly, and having a lot more planned out attacks and goals settings. Generally, this looked two different ways—on the one hand, you could just be that of queer/trans people hanging out all the time, no one having any clue about what you’re up to when they don’t see you. On the other hand, no one has to be aware that they are surrounded by a hateful queer squad with plans for them. Our enemies always know how to lay out just the strategies to undo them, if you listen just the right way.
*** We’ve got one of the best tactics around, the secret potential of closets. Something we used. You could appear to the world as just isolate, normative cis-hetero people, and they will never see it coming—looking like a fucking queer later can throw off any description cops have when they come looking.
*** Mixing up open and closed formulations created a powerful dynamic for conflict. Being open ended allowed us to slip between different situations and approached and take whatever form exploited our enemies and allowed us to keep on the attack. For infiltration, blackmail, targeted attacks against rapists and pimps, and working together to rip off our jobs, the closed form was indispensable. For open conflict, intimidation, creating space, inspiring other angry queer/trans kids to link up and grab a weapon, the open form was key. Walking between forms can (and should) be as quick as a stroll from one block to the next.
*** On the question of leadership: lots of gangs have leadership roles. We’re obviously found these useless: chains of command are the quickest way for one person to try and ‘calm down’ or rally up everyone else for their personal benefit So yeah, not interested. However, this doesn’t mean that there can’t be different levels of “in” in your crew—but this is formed on the basis of who’s shown themselves comfortable with what. This is mostly an issue for more open formulations; some people are down, but only by degrees. You might collectively trust some people more or some less than others. Some people you might trust, but you’re yet to act together~especially on risky shit. It’s important that everyone know that not everyone needs to know everything. Also some people are liberals, and they really don’t know shit—unless that tranzqueer swagger you got gets them hot, the 8shrug* maybe they have potential.
3. SHARE THE GIFT OF YOUR VIOLENCE
“Friendship, Vengeance and Contempt—these
are the only guides worth following”
The lived reality of the participants in a riot/black bloc/situation where you and everyone around you is just out to fuck shit up, then you’ve felt that maniacal pull towards smashing anything your sick of. You’ve felt how the only act worth anything in those moments is multiplying that sense of power. This sensation is the sensation of the gang—the embedded relation between you and your friends, making it your daily context, the medium you talk and live through. There is no program for friends bonded between each other; goals become apparent relative to the force and corruption you can wager. With each other, anything in your way—share the gift of your violence.
*** Our “theory” is really simple: self protection and exploding social war by communalizing violence—to multiply, not exhaust our terror. Build a material social force by living together with relationships between us that build autonomy and destroys theirs. Start the fight, bring the bashing first; attack and hit back and find others already fighting and build bonds between you—the anarchist scene, outside the bonds we already share, is mostly a husk to be shrugged off. It’s not like our enemies are hard to come by; neither then are accomplices. Of course, generalized social war is our goal in writing you these sweet things, sooo… nothing resembles our desire so much as endless irritation.

We knew his house. We knew he was inside, and after a week of watching, strolling by every couple hours looking dirty and forgettable, we knew he was alone. This rapist fuck was a known scum bag, but after raping one of our own a few years back, this little shit went and bragged about it and other times he’d fucked people after they said stop to his bro’s a bit too loudly—and one of us overheard, because you never know who your friends are. Honestly, we didn’t even know he’d made it back into town, but whatever, his loss. We’d been sitting in this alley block opening to the street, waiting around for our friend to hit us up on whether the coast was clear, got that yes and we just rolled—hoods up, pink masks on walked right up to the front door while two of us went into his backyard with the back door (ya know he kept it unlocked) and like that we busted out the lock, kicked in the door, ran up on his screaming ass from both sides and dazed him with a piece of plywood. We dragged him to the back of the house, taped his mouth shut, tied his hands and feet to a chair, handed a bat to the survivor and laughed while they knee-capped hi,—it took a couple swings, but I don’t think hospitals can fix that. After that we put a few cuts on his face and someone sprayed bright pink spray paint into his face and eyes.

*** Some people like to make themselves into a message to show the dumb queer proles the way. We’d rather skip the years of anarcho-activism and get to the open conflict—invite only orgies might help speed things along. Some people like to say all of what they are going to do, sprayed up on the walls. Broken bones send a better message. “Safe space” is a practice of war, or else the concept is worthless. Something that looks like going on the offensive wherever; not pacified, brief back room group therapy. With each other, acting together—against anything that makes themselves a target.

Nothing burns like getting tricked by a trick and after one too many times I was ready to quit sex work but how the fuck was I going to get money? Rich chaser fuckers all married with kids and cars and shit getting uppity and treating a girl like shit—I know they hate loud trannys except when they wanna fuck me so after talking with a few people we got an idea—so you know, after a couple days scheming up craigslist I had more work lined up for the weekend, but things went a little different this times—I’d already let everyone know where I was going, so when he brought me into his big nice house in his nice neighborhood, I left the door open, snapped his picture, and put a small gun to his head. Then all my grrrls rushed in and took what shit was ours—the trick just looking helpless and he knew we had blackmail so kept his trap shut. Once everyone was done we thanked him for helping a girl out and left him pistol whipped n bleeding. The next time, knocking the trick out was how it started. THEY HAVE A LOT MORE MONEY WHEN YOU TAKE WHAT YOU DECIDE YOU’RE WORTH LOL!

*** These actions become casual, normal—and writing a communique about all your criminal ultra-queer violence and destruction might feel out of place. Who else do you know who could really do with a hit squad with analysis? Playing fair means just playing. Sell shit to your enemies—Later someone from your crew robs them of what they were just sold. Repeat on and on and on. Throw the driver out of fancy cars, sell the parts. When things go awry—cops concentrated in one area, power outages, storms, house fires, whatever—is an opportunity to run wild~ maybe you can provoke them. Break into a condo, party and burn it down. Knock some asshole out when their alone and leave them on their friends doorstep.

Three of us were just walking around for about 2 hours on some business after a party, just venting to each other when this flashy white SUV pulls up alongside us. Now we always look good, and he wants to know how much we was, we asked “all together?” and he was like “yeah” so we got into his car and it just something about* how this motherfucker talked that I don’t really know how but we knew just what we wanted to do with this guy so we put the knife to his throat and robbed his ass clean then slapped his head on the steering wheel till he passed out. Then it was just a free car so what else would we do but ride till the tank was empty?

*** Anarchists have this bad tendency to shy away from power—mostly because they really want to keep themselves useless~something about vested class interest and trace liberalism. Rebel’s for play. For us, as we get worse, our hunger only grows. I WANT all the dumbass queer haters to start shit. Sometimes, you get tired of waiting around, and just start throwing things first because fuck em’. You get all urgent and relentless, and just want to explode tensions and push things beyond their breaking point so you can laigh together afterward and do it again. And that’s when things get good.
*** Fight everywhere, stay in the thick of it, get tight with your crew.
NO CONCLUSIONS
*** We were serious when we said BB! Should die and be reborn as a hella vicious street gang. Really, we’re been veering toward this from day one.
*** It’s what all the anarcho-managers have been wriging their hands trying to stave off.
*** A couple of us already when there, we just didn’t write the communiques because this shit got normal. Of course, none of this means you should isolate yourself into crews and crew only, never speaking with anyone else, we hang out with whoever all the time. But you might find that the more your crew makes the war visible, the more it will resonate with other people you might not have expected; excitement is the medium of social war generalized.
*** Also, don’t act like a preacher. Go ahead and start raising money now for when you or someone you know gets arrested. Not everyone gets the anarcho-lingo, and wile some words are worth going to war over, most language politics are middle-class preoccupations.
*** A final clarification: When we say “anarchist” we mean living in conflict with capital, and all the social relations created therein. Until class society is ended, we want nothing but eternal war.
*** If you’re still doing that anarcho-activist manager thing, whether in its liberal or recent reactionary insurrectionist version: go die.

Further reading:
*Towards the Queerest insurrection *Vengeance 1-3 *Interview with the Class Warriors *The Coming insurrection *Cabal Argot *Catechism of the Revolutionist *Not Yr Cister press *Enemies we know

Read less, fight more

Some background in the history of BB! would probably be helpful but anyway what do you think of the piece? The only online copy I could find as of now is on some tumblr page (the most common zinelibrary link seems to be down).

Enjoy.

[Lily Briscoe]

Stopped reading after the first paragraph tbh

[motion denied]

just skimmed but seems 2edgy4me

[RedKobra]

Was it written by a 12 year old? Seriously wtf?

[BIXX]

Stopped reading after the first paragraph tbh
Why?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Seems like a pretty standard anarchist piece from the last decade or so. Not holding it against them I've just read enough of these to be able to read the first few sentences and already know what the rest have to say. Starting permanent groupings like they seem to be suggesting is a step backwards though, there is a reason affinity groups came into existence in the first place, and it seems like bashback understood that

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You folks ever make a post and then re-read it only to discover you used 1 word too many times?

[The Feral Underclass]

The text is purposefully antagonistic, especially towards cis-hetero people, so I can see why some would find it problematic. I don't think there is any value criticising the style of the writing. Obviously whomever wrote it was trying to create an informal conversational style and I don't think criticisms about the standard of writing is really very fair.

The content of it is only really going to appeal to queer anti-authoritarian revolutionaries, so posting it on a forum dominated by heterosexual boys/men, the majority of whom are turgid leftists, isn't going to be helpful in finding a constituency of people to have a sensible conversation about what it's proposing.

For me, if you scrape away the unnecessary (although understandable) posturing, what it's proposing is justified and necessary.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why?

tl;dr

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It may be justified and necessary, but the search for others, communalization of violence, lived realities, blending back in when necessary, etc. are all pretty standard tropes from insurrectionist writing, just with a specifically queer audience in mind. What did bashback split over?

[The Feral Underclass]

It may be justified and necessary, but the search for others, communalization of violence, lived realities, blending back in when necessary, etc. are all pretty standard tropes from insurrectionist writing, just with a specifically queer audience in mind.

Yeah, and?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And what?

[The Feral Underclass]

And what?

And I assumed the observation you made had some kind of point to it...

[motion denied]

Read this again. Wow, total garbage.


exploding social war by communalizing violence—to multiply, not exhaust our terror.

comic book villain material. or maybe scooby-doo ghost line.

[Lily Briscoe]

Because it's absolutely ridiculous:
*** First, let’s clear a few things up: Bash Back! is dead—old history. We’re still fucking its corpse, totally disinterested while the filthy body falls apart, starts to smell. Whatever. Here’s the real point: if at the moment of BB!’s disappearance this queer virus fails to spread, if we aren’t proliferating terribly, then we’re kidding ourselves, call what we experienced a death (despite our nihilist-woo-woo-insurecto fantasy’s)—if this is our case, then what we chose was to survive things as they are, making our peace~ even with noted bad attitude. Doing-Being Assimilation, by other means. And that cool, right? Jay/kay~ <3lulz<3~Fuck You, Fuck That Shit. If your making your peace we are enemies from the start—Get fucked. For whoever is still insatiable: your glee, hatred, and friends are waiting; so get your shit together and begin again. Crazy insurrecta-*****es had it right—but once or twice “affinity groups” are cheap shit—let’s get it constant. Some of us were stepping to that shit before the first convergence, and some of us have been rolling hard since, licking our lips at that “War” in Social War. Here are a few of our notes.If you even have to ask 'why', I would recommend taking a breather from your subcultural circle and returning to reality for a short time, at which point I think you'll be able to answer the question for yourself.

Stuff like this doesn't even warrant engaging seriously. It's like gross identity activism's schizophrenic kid brother

[The Feral Underclass]

Lol @ queer liberation being referred to as "identity activism".

I wonder if speaking the way the text does is only ridiculous when it's written down, or do you insult the way people speak to their faces too?

I weep for RevLeft. I mean, do any of you pricks (sans Ethics) actually have anything to say about the ideas and theory behind the text, or are you all just going to piss and moan about the way it's written?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And I assumed the observation you made had some kind of point to it...

The observation is the point?

[The Feral Underclass]

The observation is the point?

Fair enough.

[motion denied]

Theory? I thought we were supposed to "read less and fight more".

It's a long rant that amounts to "I'm angry and want to fuck shit up". Yea, cool, but still nothing of value there. I stick with "boring" politics, thx.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Everyone should relax tbh

[The Feral Underclass]

Theory? I thought we were supposed to "read less and fight more".

It's a long rant that amounts to "I'm angry and want to fuck shit up". Yea, cool, but still nothing of value there. I stick with "boring" politics, thx.

You sound like a fucking child. Grow up.

I mean, when faced with people like you, why do you think queer people are angry and what do you think the purpose of queer people seeking to fuck shit up actually serves? But of course, why would these questions be of interest to you.

I'm glad to see that contempt for queer people and their liberationary practice is alive and well on RevLeft.

[The Feral Underclass]

Everyone should relax tbh

I'm perfectly relaxed. I got myself a donut. Nothing like some good-old fashioned heteronormative oppression to make me want a donut.

[RedKobra]

You sound like a fucking child. Grow up.

I mean, when faced with people like you, why do you think queer people are angry and what do you think the purpose of queer people seeking to fuck shit up actually serves? But of course, why would these questions be of interest to you.

I'm glad to see that contempt for queer people and their liberationary practice is alive and well on RevLeft.

First of all its a little bit presumptuous to assume everyone here is heterosexual. Secondly, the screed is incoherent babble. If you take something from it then fine, personally it reads like it was written by an adolescent with all of their fury and angst but as with all of us little actual knowledge or understanding. I have no beef with queer politics at all. I do have a beef with ranting, rambling, incoherence though.

[The Feral Underclass]

First of all its a little bit presumptuous to assume everyone here is heterosexual. Secondly, the screed is incoherent babble. If you take something from it then fine, personally it reads like it was written by an adolescent with all of their fury and angst but as with all of us little actual knowledge or understanding. I have no beef with queer politics at all. I do have a beef with ranting, rambling, incoherence though.

If it were incoherent babble, why am I able to understand what it's saying? Why is Ethics seemingly capable of deciphering it? Why dirty doxxer?...There's nothing incoherent about the central ideas of the text. Nothing at all. If you find it incoherent then that has nothing to do with the clarity of the ideas. And since the text is written by someone with extended experience of being involved in queer liberationary politics, perhaps you might consider that the anger and fury is indicative of the conditions queer people face, rather than some exposé of immature adolescent.

If this thread is good for anything it is being an indication of the patronising, contemptuous attitudes that queer people face within the anti-capitalist movement.

[motion denied]

You sound like a fucking child. Grow up.

I am shocked at your preposterous ageism!



I mean, when faced with people like you, why do you think queer people are angry and what do you think the purpose of queer people seeking to fuck shit up actually serves? But of course, why would these questions be of interest to you.

Queer people have many motives to be angry, as do most people, some more than others. I wonder, what are people after: a momentary irrational discharge of rage and instant feeling of satisfaction or...?


I'm glad to see that contempt for queer people and their liberationary practice is alive and well on RevLeft.

I'm glad to see that liberatory practice apparently means verbose writing and "making total destroy". On the contrary, radical is not radical because it sounds so, but because it grasps the root of the matter (something that the latent desperate irrationalism seem to disavow). This whole manifesto amounts to nothing, proposes nothing but "living at the margins". As for myself, I don't believe queer people can be liberated this way.

No contempt whatsoever.

[Lily Briscoe]

Lol @ queer liberation being referred to as "identity activism".

I didn't say 'identity activism', I said 'identity activism's schizophrenic kid brother', and yes, I think that is a fairly accurate description of 'queer liberation' politics.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

My criticism is really only relevant to the article itself, most of the ideas it contains are valid if poorly expressed. A group of people, living at the margins as you say, snatching back a little agency for themselves via fighting with police or engaging in some low-level vandalism isn't something that should be dismissed because of the writing style used in an article defending that kind of thing. We can wonder what will follow, but the existence of queers or anyone for that matter disrupting the narrative of nice passive citizens under the rule of capital is still a welcome sight in these times.

[The Feral Underclass]

I wonder, what are people after: a momentary irrational discharge of rage and instant feeling of satisfaction or...?

The discharge of rage and instant feeling of satisfaction that queer people get from attacking institutions and representatives of heternormative society is not irrational. Queer people are at war. That isn't posturing; people's lives are literally at stake.

We are persecuted and oppressed every single day because of who we are sexually attracted to. Do you have any idea what that is like? How that makes you feel, day-in, day-out? You can't walk down the street in peace unless you hide yourself behind a façade of normative cis-hetero behaviour and even then it's in the media, on the TV, in people's jokes at work or in schools where you hear how disgusting you are and how abnormal and evil you are. Do you know how that feels? What that does to you? Because if you do, then why do you find it so difficult to comprehend that our desire to attack is rational, justified and necessary?

But as queer liberationists our long term objective is the destruction of capitalism and heteronormative society. Right now, however, we have every business in displaying our rage. It's called defend ourselves and attack heternormativity.


I'm glad to see that liberatory practice apparently means verbose writing and "making total destroy". On the contrary, radical is not radical because it sounds so, but because it grasps the root of the matter (something that the latent desperate irrationalism seem to disavow). This whole manifesto amounts to nothing, proposes nothing but "living at the margins".

This text isn't the sum of queer liberationary practice, it's one text by individuals who chose to speak in a specific way -- a way that you people are completely fixated by and seemingly cannot grasp as something that people might do. It's pathetic and you all need to deal with the fact people express themselves differently.

The text isn't a manifesto, it's an essay drawing on experiences of actually engaging in struggles against heteronormativity. What it proposes -- and it proposes many things -- are tactics to use to fight heteronormativity. They are useful tactics that are both justified and necessary. Or are you telling me, for example, that queer people shouldn't have safe houses or community centres?

If you would like to explain to me why you think queer people shouldn't organise themselves in this way against heternormativity then do so, otherwise shut the fuck up about something you clearly have no idea about.


As for myself, I don't believe queer people can be liberated this way

Do you even know what queer liberation seeks to be liberated from? I'm not entirely convinced that you're in any position to tell queer people how to liberate themselves.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.


No contempt whatsoever.

There's nothing but contempt in everything you have posted in this thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't say 'identity activism', I said 'identity activism's schizophrenic kid brother', and yes, I think that is a fairly accurate description of 'queer liberation' politics.

Well at least you're honest about your contempt for queer people.

[Lily Briscoe]

I am in a same-sex relationship (it's ridiculous I should have to qualify my comments like this), but sure, having contempt for a brand of politics espoused by some 'queer' people is obviously the same as having contempt for 'queer people'. And thinking Black Nationalism is shit is obviously the same as thinking black people are shit, etc etc

[RedKobra]

I doubt any of us hold queer people in contempt, I certainly don't. I for one am not heterosexual.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am in a same-sex relationship (it's ridiculous I should have to qualify my comments like this), but sure, having contempt for a brand of politics espoused by some 'queer' people is obviously the same as having contempt for 'queer people'. And thinking Black Nationalism is shit is obviously the same as thinking black people are shit, etc etc

Gay/bi people, more than anyone, are just as incapable of understanding queer librationary politics than straight people are (as you've demonstrated). The fact your assimilation (and that's what it is) prevents you from being able to see beyond heternormativity isn't mitigated because you happen to be gay/bi.

Queer liberationism is about understanding the nature of heteronormativity and the structures inherent within it that oppress those that deviate from those narratives. It also provides ways to fight it. Being patriotic, supermacist or separatist about one's colour and desiring to construct a society that is not predicated on heteronormative narratives are not remotely similar. Queer liberationists don't seek pride or supremacy or a society that is separate to straight people...

Since heteronormativity is a fact and since it is a fact that fundamentally prohibits queer people from achieving liberation, having contempt for queer liberationary politics is de facto contempt for queer people, or at least their freedom from heternormativity, which amounts to the same thing.

[Zoroaster]

I'm not queer myself, but the article itself seemed decent. I'll give it a chance.

[The Feral Underclass]

I doubt any of us hold queer people in contempt, I certainly don't. I for one am not heterosexual.

So you don't hold the people in contempt, just their ideas and the way they express themselves?

[Redistribute the Rep]

It's a pretty big jump to say that people not liking one specific article means they can't see past heteronormativity or have contempt for queer liberation in general...

[RedKobra]

So you don't hold the people in contempt, just their ideas and the way they express themselves?

Their ideas are one thing, I don't think they're especially constructive. As for the way they express themselves...I didn't get past the nihilistic bile. I'm not a political nihilist, I'm not an anarchist, I'm not an insurrectionaryist...so there wasn't a whole lot for me.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's a pretty big jump to say that people not liking one specific article means they can't see past heteronormativity or have contempt for queer liberation in general...

My conclusion isn't based on that premise.

[The Feral Underclass]

Their ideas are one thing, I don't think they're especially constructive. As for the way they express themselves...I didn't get past the nihilistic bile. I'm not a political nihilist, I'm not an anarchist, I'm not an insurrectionaryist...so there wasn't a whole lot for me.

What specifically isn't constructive?

[RedKobra]

What specifically isn't constructive?

If I'm understanding it correctly they favour an illegalist quasi-collectivist approach to struggle. They seem to be turning their back on anything other than the niche politics of separatism. They seem to detest everyone who isn't of a like consciousness as them, making no room for education and solidarity through combined struggle...basically I could waste ages going through it but essentially I don't share their politics and they haven't exactly warmed themselves to me by talking about illegalism, antagonism of the other sections of the oppressed, acts of wanton violence and seperatism.

[The Feral Underclass]

If I'm understanding it correctly they favour an illegalist quasi-collectivist approach to struggle. They seem to be turning their back on anything other than the niche politics of separatism. They seem to detest everyone who isn't of a like consciousness as them, making no room for education and solidarity through combined struggle...basically I could waste ages going through it but essentially I don't share their politics and they haven't exactly warmed themselves to me by talking about illegalism, antagonism of the other sections of the oppressed, acts of wanton violence and seperatism.

I see, so you're just a massive liberal who doesn't really have any specific objections, you're just prejudiced towards anything that is violent and illegal. Legalism and non-violence only means dead or assimilated queer people. That does nothing but bolster heternormativity. Objecting to violence and "illegalism" serves to strengthen queer oppression and pacify queer resistance to that oppression. Fuck that.

I don't understand why you think there is no room for solidarity and education in what they are proposing. You are also conflating the need for queer people to organise amongst themselves and create safe spaces for them to do so as "separatism." It's not a question of wanting to be separate, but of needing to be in the present conditions in order to organise and remain safe.

[RedKobra]

I see, so you're just a massive liberal

Really mature. I am disabled (as someone else pointed out we shouldn't have to qualify ourselves to you). I know a little something about humiliation and the reactionary society. My rejection of this group's message and style has got nothing to do with being a liberal, massive or otherwise. I just have a profound difference of opinion about what needs to be done. They want to hit and kick people and spout a load of unintelligible bollocks, I want to educate the ignorant. I want to find solidarity with other oppressed groups, INCLUDING THE WORKING CLASS, and I want to work at bringing about Communism as a thoroughly liberated society.

[motion denied]

Of course the quote function would not work...

Given my social position I do know how it is to be oppressed on a daily basis. Also, because of this country's violence I too don't know what is to walk so freely. Of course working class queers have it worse (since rich queers have their own venues/clubs and nice neighbourhoods). However, your appeals to emotion only confirm my initial point.

I criticized this piece of shit of an essay, not queer liberation. This is crystal clear and I don't know why you're acting as though I said anything else. If people want to form community centres or safe houses, so be it, I just don't see it as useful. Much like "safe spaces" in identitarian-filled autonomists circles, it encloses people in their ghettos. I don't see how this is challenging heteronormativity in any way. And, as I said, this rhetoric is used to promote niche clubs/venues/stores/whatever too.

Re: "queer people how to liberate themselves". I am sorry, but coming from an old boring totalizing obsolete left, I believe that only proletarian class struggle, in its total point of view of social revolution (embracing, therefore, all aspects of human existence), can liberate anyone. The social position of said class is not one identity among others; and in this "movement" anyone can criticize/propose anything they want. When you read this, please don't choose the predictable answer.

And heck, this is a forum, I'll comment on anything that I feel like...


Common modus operandi: if I criticize a piece written by anyone, I'm automatically criticizing this person or queer people in general, not at all their arguments. Get over yourself, son.

@TFU and EGTFA
Just because it shocks and makes people cross the street, it doesn't mean it's subversive at all. In fact, "[not] nice [non] passive citizens" are inherent to class society, not an inch beyond it. The "margins" are much part of the mode of production.

[BIXX]

Tfu, its not really worth arguing with them, they're anti-queer liberation effectively.

Assimilationists are just as much scum as liberal cishet fuckbags. There isn't a discussion to be had with them, really.

[The Feral Underclass]

Given my social position I do know how it is to be oppressed on a daily basis. Also, because of this country's violence I too don't know what is to walk so freely. Of course working class queers have it worse (since rich queers have their own venues/clubs and nice neighbourhoods). However, your appeals to emotion only confirm my initial point.

The more you post in this thread, the more you expose yourself as a bugler for heternormative narratives. You equate queer oppression with any oppression and you refer to an articulation of emotion by a queer person as a logical fallacy...Then you get all pissy because I suggest you're contemptuous of queer people...:rolleyes:

My question was not have you experienced oppression, my question was have you experienced queer oppression. Just because you experience oppression doesn't mean you therefore know what all oppression is. You also haven't answered my question. You accused the content of being irrational, essentially saying it is unnecessary and unjustified, and I asked you to explain why.


I criticized this piece of shit of an essay, not queer liberation. This is crystal clear and I don't know why you're acting as though I said anything else. If people want to form community centres or safe houses, so be it, I just don't see it as useful. Much like "safe spaces" in identitarian-filled autonomists circles, it encloses people in their ghettos. I don't see how this is challenging heteronormativity in any way. And, as I said, this rhetoric is used to promote niche clubs/venues/stores/whatever too.

This paragraph starts by saying you're not criticisng queer liberation, and then you go on to articulate your criticisms of queer liberation. You can't hide behind the style of this article as some kind of excuse. You are very clearly attacking the ideas within it, ideas that, incidentally, you have no understanding of.

Why is it necessary to create safe-spaces? Because without them we would have to contend with people like you and cis-het fuckers who think it's perfectly acceptable to bring their shit into our lives. We have to deal with heternormative attitudes and behaviour everywhere we go and at all times. Creating spaces that are exclusionary provides us with a space to be away from that.

How is that challenging heternormativity? Well, on its own it isn't, but it is a tactic that is necessary to organise, to socialise and to solidify communities that are disparate within society. This is necessary if we want to build a movement against heternormativity.


Re: "queer people how to liberate themselves". I am sorry, but coming from an old boring totalizing obsolete left, I believe that only proletarian class struggle, in its total point of view of social revolution (embracing, therefore, all aspects of human existence), can liberate anyone.

So do I, but economic revolution isn't going to end heternormativity. It's going to provide the conditions in which to do so, but if you think that just because we've had a revolution that cis-het people are suddenly going to abandon their long held prejudices, narratives and assumptions then you're living in a fantasy world.


The social position of said class is not one identity among others; and in this "movement" anyone can criticize/propose anything they want. When you read this, please don't choose the predictable answer.

So how do we deal with heternormative narratives? Just being a socialist isn't enough, especially when those narratives are alive and well in the socialist movement. You are a prime example of that.

You people are so eager to call unity and criticise queer liberationists for their "ghettos" and alleged "separatism" like some jealous school child, but you don't propose how queer people are to fight their oppression in their daily lives -- including within the socialist movement -- other than to fall back on your economism, which is totally unsatisfactory in providing strategies for dealing with heternormative narratives. Especially when you consider that most socialists support bullshit like gay rights as some kind of nod towards queer people. Mainstream socialist organisations haven't got the first fucking clue what queer liberation is. You people are too busy defending gay marriage and equal rights under the law to actually develop coherent strategies against heteronormativity and then you criticise those who do as some kind of separatists, yet we're the ones that have to contend with the homophobia and heternormative bullshit. You don't have to deal with it, do you?

So when you criticise us for our "identity activism" what is it you actually propose? How are we supposed to organise as queer people to lobby the bullshit of gay rights within the socialist movement, for example, if we're then criticised for organising ourselves separate to you people who are the problem?


And heck, this is a forum, I'll comment on anything that I feel like...

Even if what you're saying is ill-informed and stupid?


Common modus operandi: if I criticize a piece written by anyone, I'm automatically criticizing this person or queer people in general, not at all their arguments. Get over yourself, son.

The criticism you made of the piece of writing included criticising queer liberationists, which, surprisingly, are actually queer people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Really mature. I am disabled (as someone else pointed out we shouldn't have to qualify ourselves to you). I know a little something about humiliation and the reactionary society. My rejection of this group's message and style has got nothing to do with being a liberal, massive or otherwise. I just have a profound difference of opinion about what needs to be done. They want to hit and kick people and spout a load of unintelligible bollocks, I want to educate the ignorant. I want to find solidarity with other oppressed groups, INCLUDING THE WORKING CLASS, and I want to work at bringing about Communism as a thoroughly liberated society.

The profound difference of opinion is based on your being a liberal. That's not a cheap criticism, it's just a fact. The whole basis of your criticism was that they propose violence and illegalism, the alternative to which is non-violence and legalism. The bedrock of liberal politics.

If you want to find solidarity with oppressed groups, it's probably wise not to start by referring to their ideas as "unintelligible bollocks."

[RedKobra]

The profound difference of opinion is based on your being a liberal. That's not a cheap criticism, it's just a fact. The whole basis of your criticism was that they propose violence and illegalism, the alternative to which is non-violence and legalism. The bedrock of liberal politics.

If you want to find solidarity with oppressed groups, it's probably wise not to start by referring to their ideas as "unintelligible bollocks."

You've got this ass backwards. (as an aside calling a self-described revolutionary who posts on a revolutionary forum that you happen to disagree with on a point of revolutionary strategy "A Liberal' is unlikely to convince them that you have much to say on the matter. I'm sure its about as compelling as the use of Godwin's Law.)

You say, because I'm against Anarchistic acts of illegalism, illucidated in the piece we are discussing as indiscriminate first strikes against whoever happens to be in their way, that then some how I must be against violent struggle. This is wrong. I am against isolated and non-tactical uses of violence. I am against indiscriminate violence. I am against violence used at the wrong time in the wrong place. These violent, emotional outbursts hurt our cause, they don't help it.
I also profoundly disagree with separatism. If Disabled people decided we'd had enough of you able-bodied fuckers with your prejudice and and bigotry and that we were going to form our own commune then in what way are fighting bigotry & prejudice? We're not. We've isolated ourselves. We've ghettoised ourselves. We've surrendered the world to the forces of reaction. Fuck that. Talk to people. Reason with people. Appeal to people. Explain to people how our struggles over lap. Tell them what our lives are actually like. Win them over.
If feminists hadn't taken the time to shatter my patriarchal assumptions and social programming I would still be at best a nominal feminist. Someone who believed that equality of exploitation was the extent of female emancipation. Thankfully I now see that it goes much, much further than that. But if the feminists I know had just bludgeoned me over the head with a club or shoved an AK-47 in my face as I was walking down the street to post a letter then who knows what I'd think.
Violent thugs, the police, members of the "Lumpenproletariat" deserve a good shoeing if they attack you. No question. I have no issue with retribution.

The article seems to unequivocally advocate their own ostrasicisation. Outlaw politics. Its vanguardism at its worst.

[Invader Zim]

I didn't read much of the article. Let's just say it needs to get to the point much quicker.

As for the little drama going on here, no supprise to see TFU our resident troll king (and lover of e-antagonism) at its heart, the premise of the argument that disagreeing with a deliberately provocative article means dismissing queer people is nothing more than an appeal to the stick: if you don't agree with me then I'll accuse you of some high sin.

Though the charge of 'liberalism' is amusing, Obviously you need to invest in a political dictionary or stop watching Fox News. Of course, what makes it worse is to disparage and demean a brand new member, the bulk of whose posts appear to be asking questions.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's leaning toward authoritarianism to vilify (internal) opponents by accusing them of liberalism and contempt for LGBT people. By setting up a false dichotomy you leave no room for debate and anyone that disagrees is an enemy and should be treated as such. If you criticise specific strategic proposals made by LGBT people you're criticising LGBT people and therefore have contempt for LGBT people in general, even if you're LGBT yourself. Similar tactics have historically been employed by Stalinists and Maoists to control debate.

In the same way that criticising Indian Maoist people's war as non-constructive does not mean you have contempt for Indian tribal groups, criticising illegalism and associated strategies for 'queer liberation' does not mean you have contempt for LGBT people.

[BIXX]

It's leaning toward authoritarianism to vilify (internal) opponents by accusing them of liberalism and contempt for LGBT people. By setting up a false dichotomy you leave no room for debate and anyone that disagrees is an enemy and should be treated as such. If you criticise specific strategic proposals made by LGBT people you're criticising LGBT people and therefore have contempt for LGBT people in general, even if you're LGBT yourself. Similar tactics have historically been employed by Stalinists and Maoists to control debate.

In the same way that criticising Indian Maoist people's war as non-constructive does not mean you have contempt for Indian tribal groups, criticising illegalism and associated strategies for 'queer liberation' does not mean you have contempt for LGBT people.

For one, there is a difference between lgbt and queer. Lgbt is trying to solidify identities, not break down/destroy them. Also, the fact is, that when people disagree with the way in which we've chosen to liberate ourselves, yeah. They are fucking enemies.

Yeah, lgbt people generally have contempt for queer people because lgbt folks assimilate into the heteronormative society we live in rather than trying to liberate themselves from it.

Let's be clear, people who might be identified as l, g, b, or t aren't necessarily lgbt, if they refuse identification in that community, rather being lgbt has to do with your involvement in that scene, which is inherently assimilationist and anti-liberation.

So of course criticizing queer liberation doesn't mean you have contempt for lgbt people, just means tiu have contempt for queer people who celebrate their strangeness to society rather than hide it.

[communist fox]

As a queer person in agreement with some, but not all, of the ideas presented (i'm less insurrecto but i get the need for *some* things others might decry as lifestylism) i'd like to criticize the edgy opening reference to corpse fucking and the casual mention of sex parties. It's a minor detail but it's always in this kind of thing, its what pissed me off about "toward the queerest insurrection" too so i have that in mind rn too. Gesturing positively toward the hypersexuality of many queer communities is pretty tired in a way that is beyond rhetoric. I don't think the text is necessarily saying that sex is inherently liberatory but it reminds me of people i know who seem to think that. That sort of ideology(and i realize im pulling a lot out of this and am a bit distant from the text at this point) tends to leave those with bad sexual experiences and asexual people behind while encourging those of us who are sexually active to engage in emotionally unfulfilling sex. i could be being close minded though.

[Invader Zim]

Also, the fact is, that when people disagree with the way in which we've chosen to liberate ourselves, yeah. They are fucking enemies.

This removes the possibility for discussion of strategy and rejects plurality within a given body of individuals who otherwise would stand to benefit from cooperation. It also means that virtually everybody, including the mass of those you wish to liberate, are also 'fucking enemies'. So, good luck with that.

Of course, there is nothing unique in this brand of futile intransigence within the radical left as a whole. In fact, it's a very old joke:

gb_qHP7VaZE


So of course criticizing queer liberation doesn't mean you have contempt for lgbt people, just means tiu have contempt for queer people who celebrate their strangeness to society rather than hide it.

This is notonly facile nonense, but also a total non-sequitur. It basically boils down to: You don't agree with my specific political line on a point of strategy. Therefore, you are a prejudiced asshole.

Sorry, but what?

It is perfectly possible to entirely respect a person's desire to 'celebrate their strangeness to society rather than hide it' without agreeing with every facet of their views on strategy.

[Rudolf]

This removes the possibility for discussion of strategy and rejects plurality within a given body of individuals who otherwise would stand to benefit from cooperation. It also means that virtually everybody, including the mass of those you wish to liberate, are also 'fucking enemies'. So, good luck with that.

Of course, there is nothing unique in this brand of futile intransigence within the radical left as a whole. In fact, it's a very old joke:

gb_qHP7VaZE


I dont think that's fair tbh. It's not like splitting over some pointless shit. What we're faced with here is the difference between assimilation into heteronormativity or not. It's on this basis that there emerges a queer critique of lgbt politics.

I don't think the Python sketch can apply as then we could easily apply it to the question of left unity and i'm pretty sure most people on here correctly reject the nonsense of left unity due to fundamental differences in aims and principles.

Why then do we not do the same when it comes to assimilation into heteronormativity?



As for the OP i'm not a fan of the writing style but it seems there purposefully to provoke, and fair enough. I will say though there's some good things in it. Squatting shelter and safe spaces for example can be the difference between life and death despite the claim of its supposed uselessness by Pilantra. i mean seriously? wtf?

[The Feral Underclass]

You say, because I'm against Anarchistic acts of illegalism, illucidated in the piece we are discussing as indiscriminate first strikes against whoever happens to be in their way, that then some how I must be against violent struggle. This is wrong. I am against isolated and non-tactical uses of violence. I am against indiscriminate violence. I am against violence used at the wrong time in the wrong place.

This is just a meaningless generality. You're turning what they are saying into some caricature of itself. You're against indiscriminate violence? Well, duh...Nothing about what they are proposing is indiscriminate and I have explained to you twice now what is tactical about their use of violence.


These violent, emotional outbursts hurt our cause, they don't help it.

They might hurt your cause, but for the cause of attacking heteronormative society they are justified and necessary.

And I think it's easy for someone who is in a heterosexual marriage to criticise queer people for being emotional, since you conform to heternormative society and thus don't live under the same conditions in which queer live. Trying to belittle their emotions is a vile response to their anger...Unless of course you don't think their anger is justified, which wouldn't surprise me.


I also profoundly disagree with separatism. If Disabled people decided we'd had enough of you able-bodied fuckers with your prejudice and and bigotry and that we were going to form our own commune then in what way are fighting bigotry & prejudice? We're not. We've isolated ourselves. We've ghettoised ourselves. We've surrendered the world to the forces of reaction. Fuck that. Talk to people. Reason with people. Appeal to people. Explain to people how our struggles over lap. Tell them what our lives are actually like. Win them over.

The article isn't proposing separatism, it's proposing that queer people need and should have exclusive spaces in which to organise, socialise and solidify their communities -- that's not the same as saying queer people should be separate to other people (especially since queerness includes pretty much everyone).

Why is this necessary? Well, because without those spaces we would have to contend with people like you and cis-het fuckers who think it's perfectly acceptable to bring their shit into our lives. We have to deal with heternormative attitudes and behaviour everywhere we go and at all times. Creating spaces that are exclusionary provides us with a space to be away from that; to feel safe and comfortable without fear of shitty people and their shitty attitudes.


If feminists hadn't taken the time to shatter my patriarchal assumptions and social programming I would still be at best a nominal feminist. Someone who believed that equality of exploitation was the extent of female emancipation. Thankfully I now see that it goes much, much further than that. But if the feminists I know had just bludgeoned me over the head with a club or shoved an AK-47 in my face as I was walking down the street to post a letter then who knows what I'd think.

You have now wondered into the realm of fantasy and turned this discussion into one in which you are defending your life. It's ridiculous. No one is suggesting that you should be bludgenoned over the head or that you should have an automatic weapon thrust into your face.

What is being suggested, and which you have thus far failed to address, is the need and justification for queer people to strike as an act of defence and political retribution against institutions and representative of heternormative society that oppress us. To suggest that queer people are not entitled to take action to defend themselves and weaken their enemies is a liberal position, and seeks to pacify confrontation.


Violent thugs, the police, members of the "Lumpenproletariat" deserve a good shoeing if they attack you. No question. I have no issue with retribution.

If you have no issue with retribution, what is the actual issue...?

[The Feral Underclass]

Squatting shelter and safe spaces for example can be the difference between life and death despite the claim of its supposed uselessness by Pilantra. i mean seriously? wtf?

And the fact people call this "separatism" and dismiss it as "identity activism" shows the profound disconnect people have with queer struggles.

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, this nonsense which implies that somehow just being a socialist is enough and therefore "ghettos" are unhelpful doesn't address the issue of unpoliticised people, young teenagers sometimes, who are queer in some way and suffering abuse or persecution, who need a space to feel comfortable. Where are those people supposed to go?

Can one of you straight men please explain to me where an unpoliticised teenage female-to-male trans person who is struggling with his sexuality and identity, and is emotionally and physically abused by his peers as well as disowned by his family supposed to go? To you? Do you think you or your organisations have the experience and skills to make that person feel welcomed and comfortable and provide confidence and skills to deal with his oppression?

If you were that person, Tim Cornelis, Pilanta or Invader Dim would be the last fucking people you would want helping you. They wouldn't have the first fucking idea how to deal with any of that.

You people have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

Lol. The thought of Invader Dim trying to console and empathise with a homeless, unpoliticised teenage m-to-f trans person who is emotionally and physically traumatised is the thing of nightmares.

[Invader Zim]

It's not like splitting over some pointless shit. What we're faced with here is the difference between assimilation into heteronormativity or not. It's on this basis that there emerges a queer critique of lgbt politics.

I don't think the Python sketch can apply as then we could easily apply it to the question of left unity and i'm pretty sure most people on here correctly reject the nonsense of left unity due to fundamental differences in aims and principles.

Why then do we not do the same when it comes to assimilation into heteronormativity?

Not really the point I was making - which isn't about splitting, or the specific politics of the article, but rather the small minded attitude that dictates that you are either in 100% agreement with every line that is said or you're the enemy. I mean seriously?

[Invader Zim]

Lol. The thought of Invader Dim trying to console and empathise with a homeless, unpoliticised teenage m-to-f trans person who is emotionally and physically traumatised is the thing of nightmares.
From a person whose online persona is actually a total psychopath; an egotistical narcissist without a shred of empathy, who gets his kicks from belittling and humilating others.

[Tim Cornelis]

For one, there is a difference between lgbt and queer. Lgbt is trying to solidify identities, not break down/destroy them. Also, the fact is, that when people disagree with the way in which we've chosen to liberate ourselves, yeah. They are fucking enemies.

Yeah, lgbt people generally have contempt for queer people because lgbt folks assimilate into the heteronormative society we live in rather than trying to liberate themselves from it.

Let's be clear, people who might be identified as l, g, b, or t aren't necessarily lgbt, if they refuse identification in that community, rather being lgbt has to do with your involvement in that scene, which is inherently assimilationist and anti-liberation.

So of course criticizing queer liberation doesn't mean you have contempt for lgbt people, just means tiu have contempt for queer people who celebrate their strangeness to society rather than hide it.

Queer is still a slur as far as I know and not fully appropriated, hence why I used LGBT instead. As far as I know they are synonyms (if used positively). But of course the argument that "they are enemies", if it is an argument at all, is the same as the reflexive attitude Maoists show when they are criticised. Whenever I criticise Naxalites their response always (so far) has been something to the extend of "speaking from first world comfortability" or "who are you to tell them how to fight for their liberation?". As if any action by a subsection of an oppressed group toward their liberation is the most effective one by default because they are members of an oppressed group -- if it leads to liberation at all. It shuts down any discussion about strategy and tactics, or at best confines debate to a very limited number of options preapproved by a groupthin-esque mob mentality, common in authoritarian organisations.

As for your last paragraph, that is simply not true because there is no criticising of 'queer liberation' an sich but the specific approach toward 'queer liberation'.

[Lord Testicles]

Lol. The thought of Invader Dim trying to console and empathise with a homeless, unpoliticised teenage m-to-f trans person who is emotionally and physically traumatised is the thing of nightmares.


From a person whose's online persona is actually a total psychopath; an egotistical narcissit without a shred of empathy, who gets his kicks from belittling and humulating others.


http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/583/040/cff.png

[motion denied]

I'm not addressing either TFU or DD anymore because there can be no debate about the issue - principally with the former.

Anyway, I've met trangender/queer people pretty comfortable in the ranks of Marxist-Leninist parties (of all places!) and regular trot sects. So while the majority is probably not in the sphere of influence of "my organisations" (?), some are. Besides, contrary to what the article suggests, queer theory (or criticism of it etc) is present in traditional organisations because of university members. So much for anti-intellectualism.

Then again, the UK is the centre of the world, and the SWP the prototype of The Party. It's unfathomable (thx internet) that the rest of the world doesn't totally abide to the Anglo-sphere left. (This is a mere provocation, but hey).

Right after posting the second comment I thought "this was a mistake". I should follow my gut more often. And yea, I subscribe to most of what IZ, RK and Tim said itt...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

@TFU and EGTFA
Just because it shocks and makes people cross the street, it doesn't mean it's subversive at all. In fact, "[not] nice [non] passive citizens" are inherent to class society, not an inch beyond it. The "margins" are much part of the mode of production.

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that this kind of action is subversive because it is supposed to lead to consciousness raising on a wide scale or you know any scale at all. You're attempting to superimpose marxist goals/morality on something that would reject those standards if it even bothered to acknowledge them in the first place. I think I disagree with the idea that all random bouts of 'insurrectionary' violence lead to the road of revolutionary moments, but I guess my feeling is that one should more or less keep their mouth shut rather than add their voice to those criticizing these tactics. People burning down buildings that I don't live in or smashing up cars that don't belong to me, doesn't have anything to do with me. Voicing criticism would only add my voice to that of the petty-bourgeoisie, or their sympathizers, who are simply upset that property is not being respected.

The reason anarchists have talked about communalizing violence for 10+ years is because they continually fail to do it. We should be interested in doing that, a riot should be extended to all possible parties and expanded into insurrection, not shutdown for the sake of property rights, but not also turned into a personal playground for an 'elite' group of 20-30 anarchists. If marxists roleplay in their organizations, anarchists do their roleplaying with cops and retail chains, it's certainly more visceral to look at but just as silly and childish most of time. Affinity groups were a step in the right direction from permanent organization (the author would apparently like to go back in time and create permanent 'gangs' lol @ warmed-over weatherunderground bullshit), but this also is an organizational form that has run it's course in my opinion.

Violence should be communalized, the narrative should be broken up, but we should be aware of when actions reinforce the narrative as well, I agree. I just can't bring myself to cry over a whole foods getting smashed up or get mad when people try to experiment with autonomy in a society that allows for none, even if I sometimes don't think it accomplishes anything.

[Rudolf]

And the fact people call this "separatism" and dismiss it as "identity activism" shows the profound disconnect people have with queer struggles.

It kinda reminds me of arguments against women-only spaces tbh. All i'm waiting for now is both the claims that we just need to wait until after the revolution and that the proles are too dumb to understand intersectionality and then we've filled up our bingo cards.




Not really the point I was making - which isn't about splitting, or the specific politics of the article, but rather the small minded attitude.

It is small minded nonsense

I know your point isn't about splitting despite the python sketch being about the left always splitting but my criticism still stands: it's over the question of assimilation. If someone has assimilationist politics they would naturally be opposed by those who don't. Criticising this opposition as being small minded nonsense can and actually is applied to those who oppose left unity yet atleast the bulk of us here are nuanced enough to realise that's a crock of shit. Why not over heteronormativity?

You find lgbt people that try to enforce assimilation. Heteronormativity is policed and not just by straight cis. I knew that one as a teenager.

[Lily Briscoe]

This post wasn't addressed to me, but I just wanted to comment on part of it (briefly; I'm at work) because it's an idea I've seen expressed on this board a lot.
I think the mistake you are making is assuming that this kind of action is subversive because it is supposed to lead to consciousness raising on a wide scale or you know any scale at all. You're attempting to superimpose marxist goals/morality on something that would reject those standards if it even bothered to acknowledge them in the first place. I think I disagree with the idea that all random bouts of 'insurrectionary' violence lead to the road of revolutionary moments, but I guess my feeling is that one should more or less keep their mouth shut rather than add their voice to those criticizing these tactics. People burning down buildings that I don't live in or smashing up cars that don't belong to me, doesn't have anything to do with me. Voicing criticism would only add my voice to that of the petty-bourgeoisie, or their sympathizers, who are simply upset that property is not being respected.

[...]

I just can't bring myself to cry over a whole foods getting smashed up or get mad when people try to experiment with autonomy in a society that allows for none, even if I sometimes don't think it accomplishes anything.I can only speak for myself, but personally I couldn't care less if people want to smash up small businesses - go for it. However, if they act like by doing that they're spreading "social war" and circulate communiques about it and post them up on political discussion forums on the internet, then I'm sorry, but I think criticizing the politics behind it is completely warranted and I don't buy this idea that people have some sort of 'revolutionary obligation' to keep their mouths shut.

It's basically the same mentality you get with a lot of the 'do something - anything!' left where it becomes taboo to criticize any group - no matter how shit, nationalist, etc. their politics are - that comes up against the state.

[The Feral Underclass]

From a person whose online persona is actually a total psychopath; an egotistical narcissist without a shred of empathy, who gets his kicks from belittling and humilating others.


Yes it's all my fault and I'm just a terrible person. It has nothing to do with the complete contempt and disrespect you and others show towards me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bea Arthur]

It kinda reminds me of arguments against women-only spaces tbh. All i'm waiting for now is both the claims that we just need to wait until after the revolution and that the proles are too dumb to understand intersectionality and then we've filled up our bingo cards.

What a surprise!! Another man lecturing about women-only spaces. Women don't need your white knighting, bucko!!


I know your point isn't about splitting despite the python sketch being about the left always splitting but my criticism still stands: it's over the question of assimilation. If someone has assimilationist politics they would naturally be opposed by those who don't. Criticising this opposition as being small minded nonsense can and actually is applied to those who oppose left unity yet atleast the bulk of us here are nuanced enough to realise that's a crock of shit. Why not over heteronormativity?

You find lgbt people that try to enforce assimilation. Heteronormativity is policed and not just by straight cis. I knew that one as a teenager.Stop prattling on about assimilation, please!! The problem here is that men have a material incentive in oppressing women so that women-only spaces represent breathing room, a liberated place away from male prerogatives. By focusing on assimilating or not assimilating, you are wiping away the material basis of different cultures and subcultures. Only a united front of women confronting patriarchy head on is capable of establishing a radically egalitarian society!! If you want evidence, just look at the pig-headed male egos colliding in this room. That's what a male-led "liberation" movement will always look like.

[BIXX]

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that this kind of action is subversive because it is supposed to lead to consciousness raising on a wide scale or you know any scale at all. You're attempting to superimpose marxist goals/morality on something that would reject those standards if it even bothered to acknowledge them in the first place. I think I disagree with the idea that all random bouts of 'insurrectionary' violence lead to the road of revolutionary moments, but I guess my feeling is that one should more or less keep their mouth shut rather than add their voice to those criticizing these tactics. People burning down buildings that I don't live in or smashing up cars that don't belong to me, doesn't have anything to do with me. Voicing criticism would only add my voice to that of the petty-bourgeoisie, or their sympathizers, who are simply upset that property is not being respected.

The reason anarchists have talked about communalizing violence for 10+ years is because they continually fail to do it. We should be interested in doing that, a riot should be extended to all possible parties and expanded into insurrection, not shutdown for the sake of property rights, but not also turned into a personal playground for an 'elite' group of 20-30 anarchists. If marxists roleplay in their organizations, anarchists do their roleplaying with cops and retail chains, it's certainly more visceral to look at but just as silly and childish most of time. Affinity groups were a step in the right direction from permanent organization (the author would apparently like to go back in time and create permanent 'gangs' lol @ warmed-over weatherunderground bullshit), but this also is an organizational form that has run it's course in my opinion.

Violence should be communalized, the narrative should be broken up, but we should be aware of when actions reinforce the narrative as well, I agree. I just can't bring myself to cry over a whole foods getting smashed up or get mad when people try to experiment with autonomy in a society that allows for none, even if I sometimes don't think it accomplishes anything.

I just want to respond to your thing about gangs: I think I read into that differently than you do. I think when they use gangs they are referring to a friend/affinity group who uses gang tactics to survive or insurrect. At least that's how I understood it. But otherwise I agree with your post.

What might separate gangs from affinity groups is the way that currently (at least in Portland) affinity groups have tended to become little scenes, so the author might be trying to break from that bullshit (not saying that is for sure what they're doing, just a possibility).

Also possible, and how I read it, is that gangs are just who you tend to roll with. It makes more sense that way to me. And of course you'll try to figure out who you trust, etc...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This post wasn't addressed to me, but I just wanted to comment on part of it (briefly; I'm at work) because it's an idea I've seen expressed on this board a lot.I can only speak for myself, but personally I couldn't care less if people want to smash up small businesses - go for it. However, if they act like by doing that they're spreading "social war" and circulate communiques about it and post them up on political discussion forums on the internet, then I'm sorry, but I think criticizing the politics behind it is completely warranted and I don't buy this idea that people have some sort of 'revolutionary obligation' to keep their mouths shut.

It's basically the same mentality you get with a lot of the 'do something - anything!' left where it becomes taboo to criticize any group - no matter how shit, nationalist, etc. their politics are - that comes up against the state.

If you have a legitmate issue with the tactics then yeah sure be critical, unfortunately 9 out of 10 'left' criticisms of this kind of thing sound like they could come from the mouths of the talking heads on any cable news show. The thread about the Ferguson riots is a perfect example, the first couple critical posts acted like the offense was due to the tactics, then raquinin or whatever his name is spills the beans by posting up a picture of a small business owner and stating that "this is the real victim!!". If you're upset about property damage (I know you said you weren't) then yeah I do actually think you have an obligation to keep your mouth shut, sometimes solidarity means keeping quiet.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I just want to respond to your thing about gangs: I think I read into that differently than you do. I think when they use gangs they are referring to a friend/affinity group who uses gang tactics to survive or insurrect. At least that's how I understood it. But otherwise I agree with your post.

What might separate gangs from affinity groups is the way that currently (at least in Portland) affinity groups have tended to become little scenes, so the author might be trying to break from that bullshit (not saying that is for sure what they're doing, just a possibility).

Also possible, and how I read it, is that gangs are just who you tend to roll with. It makes more sense that way to me. And of course you'll try to figure out who you trust, etc...

No I think you're right, affinity groups are necessarily the people you can trust and as a result the people you roll with. The problem is that this reproduces the elitism that anarchism opposes. The most egregious instance I can think of (that has video on the internet) is that occupy oakland march where those 8 or 9 people trash the front of wholefoods. Basically the entire march is yelling at them to stop and one or two people actually physically try to stop them.

I'm not saying those guys should have given in and stopped, because really that march wasn't going to accomplish shit violence or no violence. But if the crowd is totally against you and aren't going to join in, what the fuck does trashing a store actually accomplish? I'm sure that crew also talked about 'communalizing violence' and 'finding each other' and all that bullshit and more to the point probably believed it, but what about their approach invited anyone else to join? They split themselves off totally from the march and made no attempt to communicate with the other people present, much less invite them to start going nuts themselves. That's a dumb tactic, it shouldn't be repeated.

[Rudolf]

What a surprise!! Another man lecturing about women-only spaces. Women don't need your white knighting, bucko!!

What you on about? I think women-only spaces are necessary. I also assume this is the default position on here.

In fact i was making a remark that arguments against queer only spaces under the guise of it being separatist, identity activism etc is the same argument made against women-only spaces.



Stop prattling on about assimilation, please!! The problem here is that men have a material incentive in oppressing women so that women-only spaces represent breathing room, a liberated place away from male prerogatives. By focusing on assimilating or not assimilating, you are wiping away the material basis of different cultures and subcultures. Only a united front of women confronting patriarchy head on is capable of establishing a radically egalitarian society!! If you want evidence, just look at the pig-headed male egos colliding in this room. That's what a male-led "liberation" movement will always look like.

I was on about assimilation into heteronormativity, something i've got a few too many experiences of.

Why does it seem you're arguing against points i neither made nor support? You never read my posts in this thread did you?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Bea Arthur is a troll just ignore them

[Rudolf]

Bea Arthur is a troll just ignore them



Thanks for the heads up. Strange trolling tactics, thought trolls were supposed to anger you as opposed to confusing the fuck out of you.

[Lily Briscoe]

Don't have time to go find the quotes, but regarding the earlier accusations of being 'assimilated', 'assimilationist' etc - just curious, what is it that I'm 'assimilating' into exactly? 'Queer' people aren't raised by 'queer' families in 'queer' ghettos with 'queer' worldviews. I don't feel any need to construct some subcultural identity for myself on the basis of something as arbitrary as the sex of the people I'm attracted to, particularly as I'm interested in fighting for a world where people aren't defined by their sexual orientation (as opposed to the one we have now, which treats it like this definitive piece of who someone is - a premise that a lot of you seem very content with). If that makes me 'assimilationist' then lol ok.

[Bea Arthur]

What you on about? I think women-only spaces are necessary. I also assume this is the default position on here.

In fact i was making a remark that arguments against queer only spaces under the guise of it being separatist, identity activism etc is the same argument made against women-only spaces.

I'm on about how women don't need men like you to explain anything about women-only spaces.



I was on about assimilation into heteronormativity, something i've got a few too many experiences of.

Why does it seem you're arguing against points i neither made nor support? You never read my posts in this thread did you?

You are talking about assimilation as an abstract thing with no grounding in men's sexist practices. Perhaps you think this isn't relevant in discussing assimilation. Feminists actually do, though. One day you should try learning about feminism.


Bea Arthur is a troll just ignore them

Ethics Gradient can't handle a woman who speaks her mind. He wishes women like that didn't exist. If he can't take the heat, he needs to go into the kitchen while women instruct him how to do actual work!!

[RedKobra]

I promised myself I was done with this thread but its sudden turn has draw me back in. This is exactly what I was talking about. When we descend into factionalism we end up in a sulky game of top trumps.

Person A: "My oppression is worse than your oppression, Person B"

Person C: "Oooh, I'd have given my right leg for that kind of Oppression. When I were oppressed..."

There is absolutely no future in factionalism. Its unity or feck all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Outrageous! Some of my best friends are kitchens

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not addressing either TFU or DD anymore because there can be no debate about the issue - principally with the former.

Yeah, ignore the queer people and agree with the straight men. That seems like the right thing to do in a discussion about queer struggles. It's also a convenient way not to have to address my criticisms of you. Of course you can't debate this issue with us because then you might have to accept the possibility that you're talking utter bollocks about an issue you no nothing about.

[VivalaCuarta]

The revolutionaries have sought to change the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to post angsty rants on the Internet.

[The Feral Underclass]

Queer is still a slur as far as I know and not fully appropriated, hence why I used LGBT instead.

But the word queer and the term LGBT aren't interchangeable, irrespective of whether you think the word is a slur or not. They are two different things. I mean, it's just unbelievable to me. You have such contempt for queer politics you even question the term we use to describe it. Do you really not see how offensive that is?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm interested in fighting for a world where people aren't defined by their sexual orientation (as opposed to the one we have now, which treats it like this definitive piece of who someone is - a premise that a lot of you seem very content with). If that makes me 'assimilationist' then lol ok.

This is basically the equivalent of saying "I don't really see colour."

Yeah, what you're proposing is all really nice and everything, but we live in a heternormative society. Our sexual orientations and identities can't just be wished away -- they won't let it.

Just consider this: the issue isn't about making our sexualities and identities a definitive thing, but about using our sexualities and identities to challenge heternormative structures of oppression.

You can't fight for a society free of heternormativity without making alternative sexualities and identities front and centre. That's just not possible.

[consuming negativity]

But the word queer and the term LGBT aren't interchangeable, irrespective of whether you think the word is a slur or not. They are two different things. I mean, it's just unbelievable to me. You have such contempt for queer politics you even question the term we use to describe it. Do you really not see how offensive that is?

as a person who grew up in an area of the united states where "smear the queer" was the name of a game we played as kids, i still intuitively jump like "what" every time i hear the word. it took me a while to even see "punk" as neutral rather than another name you use to feminize a man as an insult. then again, i think basically all efforts to "reclaim" slurs just end up playing into the bullshit rather than making things better.

[The Feral Underclass]

as a person who grew up in an area of the united states where "smear the queer" was the name of a game we played as kids, i still intuitively jump like "what" every time i hear the word. it took me a while to even see "punk" as neutral rather than another name you use to feminize a man as an insult. then again, i think basically all efforts to "reclaim" slurs just end up playing into the bullshit rather than making things better.

We're not trying to make the term neutral. We want it to mean precisely what homophobes want it to mean. Why would we not want that? Is there a problem with being queer? They call us queer because we offend their narratives and sacred assumptions and that is precisely what we are doing. I don't want them to call me "gay" or "homosexual" like I'm some socially acceptable oddity that's permitted within the strict confines and regulations of their hetero society. I want homophobes to be offended by my queerness. I want them to feel uncomfortable.

[Tim Cornelis]

But the word queer and the term LGBT aren't interchangeable, irrespective of whether you think the word is a slur or not. They are two different things. I mean, it's just unbelievable to me. You have such contempt for queer politics you even question the term we use to describe it. Do you really not see how offensive that is?

Is this suppose to be ironic? Because if it's not I'm at a loss for words. Because this is truly unbelievably.

I thought we more or less arranged to not communicate because you are unable to behave civilly and inevitably get personal in a negative way with me, or at least I construe it as such.

I wasn't going to comment, but you say that I'm the last person someone would want help from in such a situation, which I suppose doesn't mean that you believe I oppose many things discussed here per se but for the record, I have not once spoken out against things like shelters and safe spaces or whatever. I have merely objected to your and others unwarranted antagonisms and hostility to anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say. And this post being the best proof of this so far.

And now I'm being attacked for not using the word queer in the same way that I don't use the word nigger or dyke or faggot. These slurs have been appropriated by LGBT, African Americans, lesbians, and gay men, but I am none of that so I feel it's not appropriate to use them and now I'm seriously accused of contempt against LGBT people for that! Are you kidding me?!

At least, I hope it's not serious.

As a matter of fact I initially posted my message where all LGBTs were written as 'queer' but then I remember it may be a slur so I quickly changed it after googling and finding this link:

http://internationalspectrum.umich.edu/life/definitions

Queer: 1) An umbrella term sometimes used by LGBTQA people to refer to the entire LGBT community. 2) An alternative that some people use to "queer" the idea of the labels and categories such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc. ... It is important to note that the word queer is an in-group term, and a word that can be considered offensive to some people, depending on their generation, geographic location, and relationship with the word.

So really, you need to step back and shut the fuck up before you run your mouth just assuming everyone is against you. This personal vendetta against me that seemingly came out of nowhere seriously needs to stop. I don't know what your problem you think you have with me is, but I know now that the problem is you. Shut, the, fucking, fuck, up you dumb fucking imbecile.

"Yeah, ignore the queer people and agree with the straight men. That seems like the right thing to do in a discussion about queer struggles."

In a discussion about working class revolution with Friedrich Engels (capitalist) or Kropotkin (aristocrat) and reactionary workers the members of the ruling class happen to be correct. Being oppressed doesn't make you correct about how to deal with that by default.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh Tim, for god sake shut up. Get over yourself for crying out loud. :rolleyes:

If you're going to look for definitions of the word queer, I would suggest finding information from actual queer liberationists and not some bullshit mainstream liberal educational site. The term "queer" does include LGBTQA people, but is not the same as LGBT, which is a politically sanitised term. It's not "queer" precisely because it does not include the Q and the A, as well as the I (which that website missed out). Queer is much more than just being a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Strix is gay, but doesn't identify as "queer" because they are different things.

[Tim Cornelis]

I was going to say the same to you. Presumably, you don't have anything personal against me, it's just that you can't handle opposition and lash out personally with unsubstantiated accusations. To you there's an enemy behind every blade of grass and everyone is out to get you being "disrespectful" and having "contempt". Most prolific bullshitter. I'm starting to think that Invader Zim's seemingly over the top description of you is accurate and this response:


Yes it's all my fault and I'm just a terrible person. It has nothing to do with the complete contempt and disrespect you and others show towards me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

is utter bullshit and "contempt" means disagreement and "disrespectful" means different perspective. Because if you can somehow construe the non-use of a slur as "contempt" these accusations are probably without merit.

You are a dumb ass and you need to get over yourself and fix your narcissistic personality. Miserable shit.

[Lily Briscoe]

Strix is gay, but doesn't identify as "queer" because they are different things.
I don't identify as anything, actually, including gay.

[The Feral Underclass]

I was going to say the same to you. Presumably, you don't have anything personal against me, it's just that you can't handle opposition and lash out personally with unsubstantiated accusations. To you there's an enemy behind every blade of grass and everyone is out to get you being "disrespectful" and having "contempt". Most prolific bullshitter. I'm starting to think that Invader Zim's seemingly over the top description of you is accurate and this response:



is utter bullshit and "contempt" means disagreement and "disrespectful" means different perspective. Because if you can somehow construe the non-use of a slur as "contempt" these accusations are probably without merit.

You are a dumb ass and you need to get over yourself and fix your narcissistic personality.

I don't think you understand what the word narcissistic means. But that's okay, neither does Invader Dim. In any case, I don't think that everyone is out to get me, I just think this forum is inhabited by nasty, arrogant entitled men who refuse to listen because they think they've got nothing to learn. You are one of those men: Nasty, arrogant and entitled. Where other people are able to hold their tongue, I am not and I have no intention of apologising for that. You, Pilantra, Dim all deserve to be criticised heavily for the things you believe.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think you understand what the word narcissistic means. But that's okay, neither does Invader Dim. In any case, I don't think that everyone is out to get me, I just think this forum is inhabited by nasty, arrogant entitled men who refuse to listen because they think they've got nothing to learn. You are one of those men: Nasty, arrogant and entitled. Where other people are able to hold their tongue, I am not and I have no intention of apologising for that. You, Pilantra, Dim all deserve to be criticised heavily for the things you believe.

'I don't think everyone is out to get me, I just think this forum is inhabited by nasty, arrogant entitled men for daring to have an opinion that differs from My own' he said whilst also complimenting himself for his bravery in taking on these evil men. Sure bud. Keep telling yourself that.

Pilantra = arrogant, entitled, nasty because he criticised the strategic approach of a tiny minority of queer people and therefore has contempt for queer people in general;
TFU = brave and heroic while criticising the vast majority of queer people for being "bullshit mainstream liberals".

Only in your self-centred world does that make sense.

You're not even rude so don't pride yourself on that (hard as that may be for you), you're just miserable. I don't even understand why I got worked up over anything you said.

[The Feral Underclass]

Timmy. This isn't about you daring to have a different opinion to mine, it is about your opinion being wrong and offensive.


Pilantra = arrogant, entitled, nasty because he criticised the strategic approach of a tiny minority of queer people and therefore has contempt for queer people in general;

He's not arrogant, nasty and entitled for criticising that approach though, he is nasty, entitled and arrogant largely because of the way he presents himself.


TFU = brave and heroic while criticising the vast majority of queer people for being "bullshit mainstream liberals".

Why would I think my view was brave or heroic? I don't understand what you're talking about. But yeah, of course I would criticise the majority of LGBT people for being mainstream liberals if that's what they are. Why would I not do that?


Only in your self-centred world does that make sense.

I like that you construct some kind of fairy-tale good vs evil narrative and tell me that's what my attitude is, then criticise me for it. None of it makes sense, dude, because none of it is real...


You're not even rude so don't pride yourself on that (hard as that may be for you), you're just miserable. I don't even understand why I got worked up over anything you said.

You better believe I'm miserable. Reading your posts is enough to drive someone to suicide.

[Tim Cornelis]

And what opinion is that? Please provide citations of my very offensive opinion.

[Sharia Lawn]

TFU is offended you disagree with him, of course.

[The Feral Underclass]

And what opinion is that? Please provide citations of my very offensive opinion.

And drag this out more than it already has? I don't think so.

[Tim Cornelis]

And drag this out more than it already has? I don't think so.

Haha. So here's what happened:

He went back into the previous pages, found out I never disagreed with him because I never even voiced my opinion on the matter, and backtracks instead of admitting it.

[The Feral Underclass]

TFU is offended you disagree with him, of course.

Maybe that's true. Maybe I am just offended that he disagrees with me. People take their politics seriously (I'd hope), so him disagreeing with me is offensive, yeah. I think I'm happy to concede that. I don't think there's really anything wrong with being offended that someone disagrees with something that is incredibly important to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Haha. So here's what happened:

He went back into the previous pages, found out I never disagreed with him because I never even voiced my opinion on the matter, and backtracks instead of admitting it.

Stop baiting, Tim. I've already identified what was offensive about what you said. That's what started this pointless back-and-forth in the first place.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ah right, how stupid of me. I was under the assumption that you had recognised how foolish it was to say someone has contempt for 'queer people' by consulting pro-queer organisations and abiding by their advice to be careful to use 'queer' as it is an ingroup term and a (former) slur and I'm an 'outgroupper'. So I thought it was about me supposedly disagreeing with what was previously discussed about the Original Post. But in my defence, that sounds more like a lame excuse than a cause.

Notice though how dirty doxxer corrected an innocent and honest mistake about terminology without launching into a personal assault.

We have our very own Bob Avakian on Revleft

[Sharia Lawn]

Maybe that's true. Maybe I am just offended that he disagrees with me. People take their politics seriously (I'd hope), so him disagreeing with me is offensive, yeah. I think I'm happy to concede that. I don't think there's really anything wrong with being offended that someone disagrees with something that is incredibly important to you.

There's a problem when you personalize political disputes to such a degree that you declare anybody who holds a view sufficiently differently than yours to be guilty of dismissing the lives and struggles of queer people. That's personal. It's nasty. And it's beyond the bounds of productive discourse, I think. There's a difference between caring and letting that care compel you to stop at nothing at vilifying your detractors.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ah right, how stupid of me. I was under the assumption that you had recognised how foolish it was to say someone has contempt for 'queer people' by consulting pro-queer organisations and abiding by their advice to be careful to use 'queer' as it is an ingroup term and a (former) slur and I'm an 'outgroupper'. But in my defence, that sounds more like a lame excuse than a cause.

You are right. My criticism was wrong and unfounded. I apologise.


We have our very own Bob Avakian on Revleft

Yeah, I have no idea what that means.

[The Feral Underclass]

There's a problem when you personalize political disputes to such a degree that you declare anybody who holds a view sufficiently differently than yours to be guilty of dismissing the lives and struggles of queer people. That's personal. It's nasty. And it's beyond the bounds of productive discourse, I think. There's a difference between caring and caring to such an extent that you'll stop at nothing to vilify your detractors.

There are two people in this thread who disagree with me who I have not felt the need to vilify. Perhaps then, it's not that they disagree that leads me to vilify them, but rather the content and manner of their disagreement.

[Sharia Lawn]

There are two people in this thread who disagree with me who I have not felt the need to vilify. Perhaps then, it's not that they disagree that leads me to vilify them, but rather the content and manner of their disagreement.

Note the word in my post "sufficiently."

[Rosa Partizan]

If you're going to look for definitions of the word queer, I would suggest finding information from actual queer liberationists and not some bullshit mainstream liberal educational site. The term "queer" does include LGBTQA people, but is not the same as LGBT, which is a politically sanitised term. It's not "queer" precisely because it does not include the Q and the A, as well as the I (which that website missed out). Queer is much more than just being a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Strix is gay, but doesn't identify as "queer" because they are different things.

from my own experience in Germany, I find this a pretty accurate description. Queer is a term that is used in a self-identifying sense, like, you label yourself with that if you want to and feel like it, it's not a term used by others to describe you. It's also used in terms of gender identification. Being genderqueer = neither conforming to male nor female stereotypes nor willing to identify with one gender and all the implications that come with it. Sorry, I got another poor language day, but it's hopefully clear what I mean.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I agree that the piece is just not written particularly well.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One thing that strikes me about it is a common phenomena in some insurrectionary discourses, and that's the "fetishism" of illegalism & the modes of organization common to some criminal networks, like gangs. RAAN was another group that did the same thing and it was kinda dumb.

Or, in the words of KKA:


We certainly aren’t morally against the use of illegal means to free ourselves from the fetters of wage slavery in order to live and carry on our projects, yet we also don’t fetishize illegalism or turn it into some kind of religion with martyrs; it is simply a means, and often a good one.

Super informal "cell structure" networks may be good at certain things, but for achieving political objectives I don't see them as being terribly effective.

Also, the fact that Nechayev's "Catechism of a Revolutionary" is in their suggested further reading list...was that just put in there for edgy purposes? Or was it because Nechayev was a depraved criminal who also believed in a cellular structured political network?

[Invader Zim]

Yes it's all my fault and I'm just a terrible person. It has nothing to do with the complete contempt and disrespect you and others show towards me. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I hold contempt for your posts and your online persona, because so very many of your posts include comments like those reproduced below - and usually without provocation:

"Lol @ queer liberation being referred to as "identity activism".

I wonder if speaking the way the text does is only ridiculous when it's written down, or do you insult the way people speak to their faces too?

I weep for RevLeft. I mean, do any of you pricks (sans Ethics) actually have anything to say about the ideas and theory behind the text, or are you all just going to piss and moan about the way it's written?"

and:

"You sound like a fucking child. Grow up.

I mean, when faced with people like you, why do you think queer people are angry and what do you think the purpose of queer people seeking to fuck shit up actually serves? But of course, why would these questions be of interest to you.

I'm glad to see that contempt for queer people and their liberationary practice is alive and well on RevLeft."

and:

"Nothing like some good-old fashioned heteronormative oppression to make me want a donut"

and:

"If this thread is good for anything it is being an indication of the patronising, contemptuous attitudes that queer people face within the anti-capitalist movement"

and:

"I see, so you're just a massive liberal who doesn't really have any specific objections, you're just prejudiced towards anything that is violent and illegal."


I don't think you understand what the word narcissistic means. But that's okay, neither does Invader Dim. In any case, I don't think that everyone is out to get me, I just think this forum is inhabited by nasty, arrogant entitled men who refuse to listen because they think they've got nothing to learn. You are one of those men: Nasty, arrogant and entitled. Where other people are able to hold their tongue, I am not and I have no intention of apologising for that. You, Pilantra, Dim all deserve to be criticised heavily for the things you believe.

I understand precisely what narcissism means; in (very) brief: a deeply unhealthy level of self-satisfaction and self-centredness and the desire to take gratification from that. And you actively go out of your way to try to prove your own superiority by belittling others. It isn't merely that you cannot brook disagreement (which, by your own admission, you can't - such is the pedestal upon which you place your screeds), you also clearly and deliberately generate a noxious atmosphere in order to grant yourself the pretext to heap ridicule on others and once again satisfy that need to 'prove' your own 'superiority' via tearing other people down. The fact is that bitter antagonism follows your wake on these forums like a pestilent miasma. And this thread is a fine case-in-point as shown above.

[The Feral Underclass]

I hold contempt for your posts and your online persona, because so very many of your posts include comments like those reproduced below - and usually without provocation:

"Lol @ queer liberation being referred to as "identity activism".

I wonder if speaking the way the text does is only ridiculous when it's written down, or do you insult the way people speak to their faces too?

I weep for RevLeft. I mean, do any of you pricks (sans Ethics) actually have anything to say about the ideas and theory behind the text, or are you all just going to piss and moan about the way it's written?"

and:

"You sound like a fucking child. Grow up.

I mean, when faced with people like you, why do you think queer people are angry and what do you think the purpose of queer people seeking to fuck shit up actually serves? But of course, why would these questions be of interest to you.

I'm glad to see that contempt for queer people and their liberationary practice is alive and well on RevLeft."

and:

"Nothing like some good-old fashioned heteronormative oppression to make me want a donut"

and:

"If this thread is good for anything it is being an indication of the patronising, contemptuous attitudes that queer people face within the anti-capitalist movement"

and:

"I see, so you're just a massive liberal who doesn't really have any specific objections, you're just prejudiced towards anything that is violent and illegal."

I understand precisely what narcissism means; in (very) brief: a deeply unhealthy level of self-satisfaction and self-centredness and the desire to take gratification from that. And you actively go out of your way to try to prove your own superiority by belittling others. It isn't merely that you cannot brook disagreement (which, by your own admission, you can't - such is the pedestal upon which you place your screeds), you also clearly and deliberately generate a noxious atmosphere in order to grant yourself the pretext to heap ridicule on others and once again satisfy that need to 'prove' your own 'superiority' via tearing other people down. The fact is that bitter antagonism follows your wake on these forums like a pestilent miasma. And this thread is a fine case-in-point as shown above.

I find it really weird that you spent time collecting my posts together like this. Even if what you're saying is true and I just get a real kick out of being mean, why would you even care enough to point out that? What motivation do you have to actually collate posts you think are proof of what you say? Can you explain why you aren't just content with knowing that I am so dysfunctional prick with a personality disorder. Why do you feel the need to project this pseudo-psychoanalytical nonsense onto my posts? I don't get it.

Secondly, I think its really sinister that you have taken posts I've made that articulate my political position and because they articulate that position in a way that you think is obnoxious you accuse me of some kind of mental health problem or personality disorder. I just think it's really fucked up that you can read those posts and then in response think it's appropriate to somehow devalue them as nothing put the ramblings of a man inflicted with some kind of disorder just because I'm rude and sweary. Instead of just acknowledging what they are, i.e. posts with valid political arguments that are a little bit rude (and come on those posts are fucking tame as fuck), you make out that the politics is completely null-and-void because I'm kind of a little bit mental. That's fucked up, man.

Also, if what you're saying is true and I am really here to purposefully create a noxious environment and have a narcissistic personality disorder, then your choice to deal with me by calling me out in a really unproductive and kind of belittling way is really not cool. People with those kinds of problems suffer from low self-esteem, low confidence and massive insecurity problems. You're not being particularly compassionate or empathetic towards someone you claim is really fucked up -- it's almost as if you're not really interested in the actual personality disorder, you just want me to feel bad -- which is weird, since that's what you're accusing me of doing.

And for clarity, narcissistic doesn't mean what you said it means.

But I'm going to throw out an alternative hypothesis (the one that's actually true and not reliant on some pseudo-psychoanalytic narrative in which I'm just mental). I make those posts because a) I mean them and b) they are wholly appropriate to the level of anger and frustration I have for people who have shitty politics that undermines my worldview. And nothing more. I have no desire to make people feel bad, I have no interest in being superior (I am not superior to anyone for any reason -- and in comparison to some other people on this board, I'm not that smart either). I also don't particularly enjoy these kinds of exchanges. I find them stressful and unenjoyable, but I express myself in a way that is consistent with how I treat my political enemies -- with contempt. That might offend your sensibilities, but meh...If you think those posts were unprovoked, then that's fine, but I think they were wholly appropriate to the level of participation and the arguments made by those people my posts were directed towards.

When confronted by people whose arguments diminish queer libertionaism, attempt to pacify queer resistance and belittle the ideas and tactics we use to defend our lives, it is entirely appropriate for me to be hostile.

Now, people can read this exchange and decide for themselves. I honestly couldn't care less what people think my motives are. But if you think my motivation comes from the fact I have some dysfunctional personality disorder, then I think that's stupid as much as it is creepy.

[Quail]

Okay... I think this thread is on the verge of becoming a pointless flame-fest. I urge you all to engage with the meaningful points and stop with the personal insults. Any personal insults after this post will receive an infraction.

[Lily Briscoe]

This is basically the equivalent of saying "I don't really see colour."No, not really. Nowhere have I denied the existence of sexuality-based discrimination and oppression.

Just consider this: the issue isn't about making our sexualities and identities a definitive thing, but about using our sexualities and identities to challenge heternormative structures of oppression.How? I don't think you can challenge structural oppression with 'identities' and 'sexualities'.

[LewisQ]

The text is purposefully antagonistic, especially towards cis-hetero people, so I can see why some would find it problematic.
Liberals find things "problematic". I find it idiotic.

[Quail]

Liberals find things "problematic". I find it idiotic.

Care to elaborate? You finding something idiotic isn't a valid argument against it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Liberals find things "problematic". I find it idiotic.


I don't know what that means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

No, not really. Nowhere have I denied the existence of sexuality-based discrimination and oppression.

How? I don't think you can challenge structural oppression with 'identities' and 'sexualities'.

This has opened a good line of discussion. I'm at work at the moment but will respond later :)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Jeeze, there's a lot in this thread. I don't think I'm going to try and go through everything that's been said and pick out pieces to either challenge or affirm. I will say that this reminds me a great deal of a period of queer anarchist organizing in which I was at different moments either directly or peripherally involved from about late 2007 through probably about 2011 (by which point it had either collapsed, moved toward different forms, etc.). In particular, I had some engagement with what eventually coalesced as "Fierce and Fabulous Krew (https://queers519.wordpress.com/)" (though I was never central to any of their projects before, and I no longer lived in Guelph by the time they came together under that name), two "Queeriot!" conferences (in 2010 (https://queers519.wordpress.com/events/queeriot-convergence-june-10th-13th/) and 2011 (http://queeriot2011.tumblr.com)), and other more-or-less informal projects including people who were more-or-less connected to BB! or engaged in similar projects/politics.

I want to say that my own position vis-a-vis these things is complicated, but that essentially I am an outsider. For most intents and purposes, I experience the world as a hetero- and cis-gendered man. I do experience queer desire, I have had queer sex, and I have experienced queerphobic violence; yet it seems to me that these are essentially aberrations - moments whose meaning is yet to be determined in the course of struggle. For this reason, my engagement in queer politics has largely been in the context of specific invitation, rather than as a necessity of my condition. I think this context is important in that, in my assessment of these forms of struggle, I'm not really one of the people who directly experiences their successes or failures in an acute way.

I will say, as a general statement, that these forms were well-suited to meeting some immediate needs for a relatively small, relatively closed group of people. This was both a strength and a tremendous weakness, insofar as they tended to privilege a certain type of queerness which was primary based in aesthetic/subcultural affiliation rather than a long-term "deep" political unity. That's not unique - much "affinity based" anarchist organizing (rather as temporary affinity groups or even many more formal projects) tends to fall into this trap. It's also not to belittle the potential that can be found in small, closed, culturally homogenous groups - the level of mayhem some of these groups were capable of had some real tactical and even strategic significance: spaces that, for example, allowed, for example, working class trans* people to not only survive but become serious organizers aren't to be belittled. I saw small groups of committed people seriously "shock" cities, and force serious discursive change. I saw networks of solidarity emerge that fed, clothed, housed, and sexually satisfied people. Mind you, I saw these same networks reproduce trans-misogyny and "femmephobia", I saw them exclude from support, for example, the fat working class man who didn't wear enough glitter, and I saw racist missteps that tokenized people of colour and reproduced terrible fetishization of caricatures, in particular, of blackness (e.g. the heavy appropriation of decontextualized slang like "crew", glorification of mainstream rap tropes about toughness, fetishization of black women's "booty", etc.).

These weaknesses became particularly pronounced in longer term projects. The affinity necessary for a sex party (or a conference, or a robbery) is different than what's necessary for a space (even a collective house), for doing long-term solidarity work (for example, in Canada, in a settler-colonial context), and so on. Your "friend" who punched the guard may not turn out to be someone you want to live with (maybe they just get off on violence?). The cutie you topped may actually have wildly superficial politics that they spout when they want to get laid or raise money on tumblr, but nothing beyond that. As these realities come to the forefront, I think that all of the dynamics of a "scene" get laid bare. Suddenly, everyone's doing blow and nobody is doing harm reduction work. People's real problems (addiction, poverty, etc.) which had been momentarily alleviated start to get beyond the capacity of the increasingly frayed informal group to deal with. The people who are seriously committed find themselves doing double-time to hold together a fragile collection of egos with increasingly diminishing returns. People move away. The social centre closes. The rich kids move on (with another set of novel stories to tell at parties) and the people who are fucked over are left to find their own way.

I know that sounds grim, so, to end on a brighter note - the people left to find their own way often have skills and confidence they lacked before. The people who were solid have found each other, and been able to draw lines between who's serious and who's a self-interested tourist. Real lessons are drawn from critiques of failures and practical hands-on work. It seems to me that it's not in vain. As per Becket, "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."

Certainly, it's no worse than countless attempts at party-building, and certainly it's better than the increasingly yuppified politics of mainstream gay politics.

<3.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've just re-read this thread. It's like an exercise in how to try and be an alfa-male. Silly.

Anyway...


No, not really. Nowhere have I denied the existence of sexuality-based discrimination and oppression.
How? I don't think you can challenge structural oppression with 'identities' and 'sexualities'.

People who say "I don't see colour" aren't denying the existence of racial-based discrimination or oppression, they're trying to claim that what we need to do to fight racism is to claim everyone is the same. This is pretty much the equivalent of saying you want to live in a world where people aren't "defined by their sexual orientation."

The issue I have here is that being defined by your sexuality isn't the problem, just like being defined as black isn't. The fundamental problem is precisely how those definitions are regulated and understood narratively within the society we live.

I don't really want to live in a world where people's sexual orientations and genders are just incidental. I would find that world incredibly boring when you consider the rich diversity and amazing history, tradition and vibrancy of queer culture. Why would we not want to celebrate that and keep celebrating it? Trying to turn our struggle into one that sort of abrogates that culture and community is to invalidate its huge contribution (as well as its fabulousness) and I think that is ultimately the conclusion of what you're saying. Those cultures and communities were formed (not just in struggle) to define people as the human they are and to say that we should live in that world where those definitions no longer exist is really tragic, and for me completely unwanted and unnecessary.

Liberation for queer and LGBT people should not be to create "undefinedness," but to abolish the narratives of society that construct and assume "normalcy" as monogamy, heterosexual and gender-binary, and use our cultures and communities to construct queer narratives that say "normalcy" is whatever the fuck you want. In other words, you can define yourself in whatever capacity you choose, doing whatever turns you on, being whomever you want to be for whatever reason -- and that this is an unquestioned assumption. Liberation can only exist when our world celebrates "definitiveness" as something that is the foundation of identity. In other words, I want my children to be able to grow up in a society where definitions of gender and sexuality are fundamentally their own, and rather than hindered by any structure, whether it is institutional or narrative, they are able to celebrate themselves for who they are.

How do we create that? Well if we assume that the first step to that kind of liberation is defeating capitalism and that this is just a given, what we are left with is a discussion about how we as queer and LGBT people attack the prejudices, assumptions and superstitions of the working class, and when that is supposed to happen. Is it something we wait for or is it something we have to start now? I believe it is something we have to start now. We have to start challenging those narrative and institutional structures if we want to finally abolish heteronormativity (monogamous, heterosexual, and gender-binary) and construct queerness (everything that can be conceived). We shouldn’t wait for capitalism to be defeated, not just because the issues are literally a matter of life and death for our folk right now, but because we have to get organised.

Our identities, therefore, are necessary because they define how we see queerness. If we want to tackle the narrative and institutional power of heteronormativity, then we have to fight it with our own narratives and institutions (this is sort of a riff on Gramsci). This is why celebrations of gender and sexuality, as well as places like queer social centres and so forth are useful political tactics. Obviously there are radical aspects of this view; people like those who wrote the text clearly think that violent confrontation must also play a party in that process (and I happen to agree). By-and-large, however, the tactics espoused in that text aim to achieve the objective of challenging heternormative narratives by presenting queer ones, while also defending queer people from their in-situ circumstances which are often abusive and alienating (hence the squats etcetera).

Now I know you don't think I'm a particularly nice person and I don't do myself any favours with my outbursts of frustration, but we have to remember that no matter how differently we see the design of this struggle, these are our struggles. Commentary by straight people should be seen as unwelcome. Obviously that point can be articulated in a far less hostile way than I choose to make it if that’s your style, but it should be a central point here. Straight people can be allies, but we must always take the lead on queer and LGBT struggles. That's not to say that queer struggle isn't also a struggle that includes heterosexuality either -- it absolutely is -- and we should embrace heterosexuality as we would embrace any sexuality, but we must also recognise that their orientation is the dominant definition of sexuality and therefore they are positioned in a unique and advantageous way that cannot be used to inform queer ideas and strategies. The unique and advantageous position of heterosexuals also brings with it engrained assumptions about how they are entitled to engage in struggle and discussion, and we have to protect ourselves from that.

Ultimately, however, our interaction should be how queer and LGBT people make their own choices and wage their own struggles. Simply dismissing a text because you don't like the way it is written isn't really a productive response to ideas, even if those ideas you don't agree with. We have to construct a dialogue (when I say "we" I mean the queer lib community and LGBT people) that can embrace a diverseness of tactics and a unity of purpose. For me, that dialogue has to include the following: communism, direct action and dissimilation, while excluding: straight people, reformism and gay rights.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One thing that strikes me about it is a common phenomena in some insurrectionary discourses, and that's the "fetishism" of illegalism & the modes of organization common to some criminal networks, like gangs. RAAN was another group that did the same thing and it was kinda dumb.

Or, in the words of KKA:



Super informal "cell structure" networks may be good at certain things, but for achieving political objectives I don't see them as being terribly effective.

Yeah I feel kinda sad when I read insurrectionist stuff because for all the macho posturing, underneath it seems to have very low sights for what is possible and a capitulation to neoliberalism. Liberation is not really possible, so just fucking some shit up is better than nothing. I mean you know (generally, in the U.s.) white folks fetishizing living on the margins while for other communities this has been forced on them out of a need to survive on the margins and it hasn't done a thing to lessen the oppression of black or immigrant or impoverished rural white communities.

[~Spectre]

Commentary by straight people should be seen as unwelcome.


Why?

[RedKobra]

I don't pretend to be a 'Queer Liberationist' and certainly don't know a lot about it (at least in what sense it deviates from mainstream LGBT struggle) but to what extent do Queer Liberationists see their struggle as being of mass potential? I ask because I think Class is something that consciously unites millions, I see Gender as consciously uniting millions. Niche struggles (not to diminish their righteousness) like those of the Disability & Queer movements seem to me to be limited by their very nicheness. How can these ever grow beyond their natural limits? The limits, to me, dictate fighting for recognition and respect but not adoption of the values of these movements society wide.

I ask in a sincere and comradely fashion.

[cyu]

Yes, working class and gender struggles have more mass potential than the struggle of other oppressed groups. However, I would say that the very reason other groups are oppressed is because working class struggles are such a threat to the ruling class. The reason is this: because working class unity is so dangerous, the ruling class needs to distract their efforts away into unrelated conflicts. To do so, they attempt to divide and conquer the working class by encouraging other types of prejudice.

If people are busy arguing about abortion, they won't be thinking about kicking out their boss. If people are busy attacking or defending various minorities, they won't be thinking about the ruling class (unless the minority they focus on is the ruling class itself). It's basically like, "Hey, don't look at me. Look at the black guy instead. Look at the gay guy instead. Look at the Jewish guy instead. Look at the immigrants. Look at the asylum seekers."

As mentioned before, I suspect this type of prejudice may be the unique result of trying to force-fit capitalism on top of democracy. When it takes majority consent to get things done, the ruling class is forced to engage in majoritarian politics - fomenting prejudice against whatever minority group (as long as they're relatively powerless) to distract attention away from the fact that the ruling class itself is a minority group.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why?

Good question.

Heterosexuality is the prevailing norm and anything that does not conform to that is considered abnormal or "apart" from heterosexuality. In terms of sexual orientation, this privileges straight people who enjoy an accepted and reinforced identity. Their experiences of their identity are framed within that security and social foundation. It is therefore not possible for a straight person to speak of queer issues, since their experience of their sexuality is informed by the very narratives that queer people struggle against.

The struggle against heternormativity requires straight people to relinquish the assumptions and entitlements they have learned through social conditioning. That cannot happen if straight people are attempting to influence that struggle. Straight people have a role to play in struggle against heternormativity and we should embrace straight people as allies, but those allies are followers, not leaders of this movement.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't pretend to be a 'Queer Liberationist' and certainly don't know a lot about it (at least in what sense it deviates from mainstream LGBT struggle) but to what extent do Queer Liberationists see their struggle as being of mass potential? I ask because I think Class is something that consciously unites millions, I see Gender as consciously uniting millions. Niche struggles (not to diminish their righteousness) like those of the Disability & Queer movements seem to me to be limited by their very nicheness. How can these ever grow beyond their natural limits? The limits, to me, dictate fighting for recognition and respect but not adoption of the values of these movements society wide.

I ask in a sincere and comradely fashion.

It seems to me that it's a mistake to oppose "mass" and "niche" struggles, insofar as no "mass" is in fact homogenous. To have an authentic working class struggle, one can't simply appeal to an abstract "worker-without-adjectives" - this method has time and again led to institutional domination of struggles by the most privileged strata. "Niche" struggles are necessary to contextualize and make struggles relate to real lived experiences of capitalism.

I also think the wording "niche" is unfortunate, since it imagines a "norm" that doesn't exist. The white straight able bodied male etc. worker isn't actually a majority of workers, and steps away from that which address particularities don't mean speaking to fewer people - just different people.

[~Spectre]

Heterosexuality is the prevailing norm and anything that does not conform to that is considered abnormal or "apart" from heterosexuality. In terms of sexual orientation, this privileges straight people who enjoy an accepted and reinforced identity. Their experiences of their identity are framed within that security and social foundation. It is therefore not possible for a straight person to speak of queer issues, since their experience of their sexuality is informed by the very narratives that queer people struggle against.

The highlighted does not follow. Your premises if granted indicate a probability of error, but not a certainty. Without having established the impossibility, it seems we should revert back to dismissing or accepting claims on the basis of whether they are right or wrong, and not based on the person making the claim.

[The Feral Underclass]

The highlighted does not follow. Your premises if granted indicate a probability of error, but not a certainty. Without having established the impossibility, it seems we should revert back to dismissing or accepting claims on the basis of whether they are right or wrong, and not based on the person making the claim.


How can a person speak of an experience having never experienced it? I am not black and never have been, therefore how is it possible for me to speak of being a black person? Experiencing yourself as exclusively a thing that causes oppression, how can you then speak of the thing that is oppressed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

While spaces and struggles for queer-identifying people should be respected, it has to also be acknowledged that the politics section on revleft isn't one of them. Moreover the discussion has for the most part focused on the insurrectionist tactics being pushed forward by the article, although some of the attempts to dismiss queer struggle have been disappointing to read. Tactics that fail in hetero-dominated spaces also fail in queer-dominated spaces and I think everyone should be careful when setting up rules for who can and who cannot voice criticism, the real trick is deciphering which criticism is actually a disguised attack on queer-identifying individuals attempting empowerment.

My example I use to justify this caution is the uhuru movement; a nominally 'socialist' pan-african movement that exercises some of the worst politics but who show up to protests with a ridiculous white auxiliary group who are not allowed to take part in decision making and can only 'participate' as followers. This is not a productive political strategy, and I don't think exclusion necessarily leads in this direction but it's something everyone should be conscious of.

[cyu]

For anarchists, there are no set categories for "leaders" and "followers" anyway. But if I'm going to Ferguson, I'd probably go in there thinking I have an answer to all their problems, but in all likelihood I don't even know most of the problems experienced there on a daily basis. Have my parents ever given me a talk about how to behave around police officers? No. Did I even know "the talk" existed before a few months ago? No. Have I ever felt the need to address people by "Sir" to avoid them trying to pull some kind of sh*t on me? No. Have I ever been stopped and frisked? No. Have I ever been afraid I'd be stopped and frisked? No. Do people look at me warily when I get in the elevator with them? No.

Alternatively, when I go to a meeting, do others expect that I will be the person to write down the minutes of the meeting? No. If I go on a date with someone, did I ever have to consider if I'd be able to defend myself if attacked by my date? No...

[~Spectre]

How can a person speak of an experience having never experienced it?



Even if we once again grant your premise, the conclusion wouldn't follow. No one said anyone needed to speak about the totality of any other person's experience. We're talking about commentary on the efficacy of a given tactic in this world we share. There is nothing that makes it impossible for a straight person to be right on the question of a given tactic. Thus we should attack ideas and not speakers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Even if we once again grant your premise, the conclusion wouldn't follow. No one said anyone needed to speak about the totality of any other person's experience. We're talking about commentary on the efficacy of a given tactic in this world we share. There is nothing that makes it impossible for a straight person to be right on the question of a given tactic. Thus we should attack ideas and not speakers.

Queer people and straight, cis-gendered people don't share the same world.

It is not literally impossible for a straight person to speak about such things. They can literally open their mouths and give commentary, but what would that be based on? What would a straight person know about what given tactics queer people should or should not use to protect themselves and fight for queer liberation? If you are unable to speak about the "totality of a person's experience" that would also include the political tactics they use as a consequence of that experience.

[Lily Briscoe]

The upshot of this seemingly being that people can only have political views on subjects pertaining to the demographic 'groups' that they are a part of. So, for example, TFU can't be against Irish nationalism; he doesn't have 'the Irish experience', so has no business criticizing the ways that Irish people go about seeking their own 'liberation'. It's nonsense.

(Also, I haven't forgotten about your, very long, response to my comments a page or two ago. Just haven't had the time to respond yet).

[Rugged Collectivist]

I take issue with the assumption that all queer people share the same experiences. Being queer in New York city is fundamentally different than being queer in the shittiest part of Alabama.

Has anyone ever actually thought about how absurd it is to lump "queer" people together at all?

[Bala Perdida]

I take issue with the assumption that all queer people share the same experiences. Being queer in New York city is fundamentally different than being queer in the shittiest part of Alabama.

Has anyone ever actually thought about how absurd it is to lump "queer" people together at all?

What? Queer people being abused 'lightly' are still being abused. There's a good amount of abuse towards minority groups that takes place in urban areas such as New York too. Saying that there are areas where queer people are violently not welcome is just pointing out the obvious. That's the point of a grouped struggle, is to address all issues facing them. A queer person in New York is still going to have a better understanding of the Alabamians struggle than a straight person of the same area. Also a queer person in New York is just as unwelcome in Alabama as the local is.
The struggle is what brings them together, because they are discriminated against as queer people. I don't know what you're trying to say when you talk about 'lumping them together' as if showing eachother solidarity is an absurdity. As if queer people are somehow self discriminating instead of struggling against the violence they all face specifically because they are queer.

[Rugged Collectivist]

What? Queer people being abused 'lightly' are still being abused. There's a good amount of abuse towards minority groups that takes place in urban areas such as New York too.

Surely there is, but I have a hard time believing it's the same experience. My point still stands.


Saying that there are areas where queer people are violently not welcome is just pointing out the obvious. That's the point of a grouped struggle, is to address all issues facing them. A queer person in New York is still going to have a better understanding of the Alabamians struggle than a straight person of the same area.Again, similar doesn't mean the same. A queer New Yorker has no experience as a queer Alabaman. Where is the line drawn? What about in areas where the violence is not only widespread, but approved of by the legal system? Would a gay guy from New York have the right to comment on the struggles of a gay guy from Uganda or Saudi Arabia? What about a gay guy living in, say, the Castro district of San Francisco? In what meaningful way is his experience relatable to a queer person in Riyadh?


Also a queer person in New York is just as unwelcome in Alabama as the local is.Of course, but if they never go there, it won't matter.


The struggle is what brings them together, because they are discriminated against as queer people. I don't know what you're trying to say when you talk about 'lumping them together' as if showing eachother solidarity is an absurdity. As if queer people are somehow self discriminating instead of struggling against the violence they all face specifically because they are queer.It seems arbitrary. What experience does a cissexual lesbian have of what it's like to be a gay man, or a bi man, or a transsexual? If we're talking experiences where do we draw the line? at sexual orientation? Gender identity? Physical location? You can't treat "queer identity" as a monolith while simultaneously stressing the importance of personal experience.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The person from NYC is still in a better position to collaborate with the person from Alabama than a random heterosexual. If straight people are concerned with ending homophobia they should feel free to go right the source; other straight people. You're not being exiled from the planet or something.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The person from NYC is still in a better position to collaborate with the person from Alabama than a random heterosexual. If straight people are concerned with ending homophobia they should feel free to go right the source; other straight people. You're not being exiled from the planet or something.

That's the thing, though; most Marxists would say that the source of homophobia is not "straight people", but capitalism, namely the way in which it is reproduced daily. And the only group that has the social power to end capitalism is the proletariat. Gay people, as a group, do not have that sort of power, although of course the majority of them are proletarian (and the lower strata of the proletariat, the precarious and chronically impoverished, are going to contain a lot of gay people). Which is my chief criticism of this sort of dropping-out politics (and that's what the article in the OP advocates, despite the rhetorical flourishes); it's completely useless. If some queer anarchists drop out, or "go on the offensive" or whatever, the bourgeoisie won't even notice. The only way it will hurt them is if one of them dies laughing.

I also don't think this fetishism of experience will get us anywhere. When homosexuality was criminalised in Troikaland, I think the straight Bonch-Bruevich was correct in speaking out against it (unlike the gay Chicherin). I think the analysis of gay oppression given by Marxists, some of which were straight, is more correct than the analysis of lesbian separatists. The point is that having an experience doesn't mean you are able to articulate it into a useful theory, and that not having an experience does not mean that you can't describe it. God's nonexistent sake, gay and straight people don't live in different universes, and gay oppression is material and objective. An alien lifeform could come to Earth and notice it.

Finally, the notion that society can be changed by "queering normality" and whatnot (I'm not up to date on the lingo) is such brazen idealism I don't know what to say. It's literally equivalent to claiming that the world will be different if we start seeing it in a different way.

[Invader Zim]

although some of the attempts to dismiss queer struggle have been disappointing to read.

Quotes please.

[RedKobra]

That's the thing, though; most Marxists would say that the source of homophobia is not "straight people", but capitalism, namely the way in which it is reproduced daily. And the only group that has the social power to end capitalism is the proletariat. Gay people, as a group, do not have that sort of power, although of course the majority of them are proletarian (and the lower strata of the proletariat, the precarious and chronically impoverished, are going to contain a lot of gay people). Which is my chief criticism of this sort of dropping-out politics (and that's what the article in the OP advocates, despite the rhetorical flourishes); it's completely useless. If some queer anarchists drop out, or "go on the offensive" or whatever, the bourgeoisie won't even notice. The only way it will hurt them is if one of them dies laughing.

I also don't think this fetishism of experience will get us anywhere. When homosexuality was criminalised in Troikaland, I think the straight Bonch-Bruevich was correct in speaking out against it (unlike the gay Chicherin). I think the analysis of gay oppression given by Marxists, some of which were straight, is more correct than the analysis of lesbian separatists. The point is that having an experience doesn't mean you are able to articulate it into a useful theory, and that not having an experience does not mean that you can't describe it. God's nonexistent sake, gay and straight people don't live in different universes, and gay oppression is material and objective. An alien lifeform could come to Earth and notice it.

Finally, the notion that society can be changed by "queering normality" and whatnot (I'm not up to date on the lingo) is such brazen idealism I don't know what to say. It's literally equivalent to claiming that the world will be different if we start seeing it in a different way.

Thank you for explaining my thoughts considerably better than I did.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's the thing, though; most Marxists would say that the source of homophobia is not "straight people", but capitalism, namely the way in which it is reproduced daily. And the only group that has the social power to end capitalism is the proletariat. Gay people, as a group, do not have that sort of power, although of course the majority of them are proletarian (and the lower strata of the proletariat, the precarious and chronically impoverished, are going to contain a lot of gay people). Which is my chief criticism of this sort of dropping-out politics (and that's what the article in the OP advocates, despite the rhetorical flourishes); it's completely useless. If some queer anarchists drop out, or "go on the offensive" or whatever, the bourgeoisie won't even notice. The only way it will hurt them is if one of them dies laughing.

I also don't think this fetishism of experience will get us anywhere. When homosexuality was criminalised in Troikaland, I think the straight Bonch-Bruevich was correct in speaking out against it (unlike the gay Chicherin). I think the analysis of gay oppression given by Marxists, some of which were straight, is more correct than the analysis of lesbian separatists. The point is that having an experience doesn't mean you are able to articulate it into a useful theory, and that not having an experience does not mean that you can't describe it. God's nonexistent sake, gay and straight people don't live in different universes, and gay oppression is material and objective. An alien lifeform could come to Earth and notice it.

Finally, the notion that society can be changed by "queering normality" and whatnot (I'm not up to date on the lingo) is such brazen idealism I don't know what to say. It's literally equivalent to claiming that the world will be different if we start seeing it in a different way.

For what it's worth I don't personally think separation in politics is very useful in the long run. The point is that TFU isn't a Marxist and neither are the people who wrote this piece. It's not very rational to demand equal input in a group that doesn't share your ideology anyway, and more to the point nobody should be feeling excluded personally since the existence of this supposed group can't possibly prevent you or anyone else from organizing along your own principals with whomever you'd like.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For what it's worth I don't personally think separation in politics is very useful in the long run. The point is that TFU isn't a Marxist and neither are the people who wrote this piece. It's not very rational to demand equal input in a group that doesn't share your ideology anyway, and more to the point nobody should be feeling excluded personally since the existence of this supposed group can't possibly prevent you or anyone else from organizing along your own principals with whomever you'd like.

I never said I felt excluded (?), and I certainly don't expect the authors of the piece to go "oh thank you great Marxist-sensei for showing us the error of our ways". Nonetheless, if it is fair game to criticise liberals and so on, it's fair game to criticise these people, as a Marxist.

As a gay person, I also think I'm within my rights to criticise someone who thinks they can liberate gay people, with a strategy I consider laughable and near-suicidal.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Quotes please.

Strix's 'identity activism' comments were disappointing to read because I like strix, and I even get where she's coming from since I also do not identify as anything in spite of 'homosexual tendencies'. This attitude is much more exclusionary than simply not being permitted to join a group. Queer liberation groups don't undermine the struggle for communism, but communists dismissing queer liberation as 'identity activism' does undermine queer liberation. We should be interested in solidarity not scoring points off one another.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I never said I felt excluded (?), and I certainly don't expect the authors of the piece to go "oh thank you great Marxist-sensei for showing us the error of our ways". Nonetheless, if it is fair game to criticise liberals and so on, it's fair game to criticise these people, as a Marxist.

As a gay person, I also think I'm within my rights to criticise someone who thinks they can liberate gay people, with a strategy I consider laughable and near-suicidal.

I know you are gay, and I already make my position clear on groups that insulate themselves from criticism. I was talking about the heterosexuals who are feeling excluded by queer-only groups. The same sense of "exclusion" constantly comes up with women only spaces, or black only spaces etc. It's a ridiculous thing to get bent out of shape over

[The Feral Underclass]

The upshot of this seemingly being that people can only have political views on subjects pertaining to the demographic 'groups' that they are a part of. So, for example, TFU can't be against Irish nationalism; he doesn't have 'the Irish experience', so has no business criticizing the ways that Irish people go about seeking their own 'liberation'. It's nonsense.

(Also, I haven't forgotten about your, very long, response to my comments a page or two ago. Just haven't had the time to respond yet).


Well my father was Irish so I'm not sure if that's a very good example, but I get what you're saying. As I said people can literally have opinions about tactics, as they can have opinions about whatever they like. That doesn't mean they are valid.

Black people often seek reformist methods to achieve certain rights. Can I have an opinion in that? Well sure I can. I reject reformism. But does that mean as a white man it's valid for me to enter discussions between black people and tell them I think they're wrong? I don't know what being a black person is like and as a white man I am the very core of the oppression they are fighting. How can my view as a white man inform black struggle? If black people want to seek reform who am I as a white man to insert myself into that discussion?

Black people don't need white people telling them what is wrong with their movement. Why would and why should black reformists listen to a white man telling them their struggle against white oppression is wrong. Black radicals are already doing that anyway. I would be imposing myself in a situation that has fuck all to do with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you for explaining my thoughts considerably better than I did.

I wouldn't trust Xhar-Xhar's response. His analysis on pretty much everything is incredibly one-dimensional (and invariably the same), which he seems to be totally content with, but it doesn't really address the nature of the discussion.

Of course capitalism is the cause of oppression, of course the proletariat are the only social force to destroy capitalism and so on and so on, but we already know this and we've already addressed that. Xhar-Xhar tends to reject nuance, seemingly as a matter of principle, and so when you say he has explained your thoughts, has he really done that? All he seems to have done is state a paint-by-numbers analysis that you and I have already agreed on. This discussion is about more than that, right? This issue is about more than class struggle. What you have to remember is that class society and heternormativity, while linked, are two different things.

Moreover, when Xhar-Xhar says things like "the notion that society can be changed by "queering normality" and whatnot (I'm not up to date on the lingo) is such brazen idealism I don't know what to say" then it is evident he doesn't really understand this discussion. That is a gross and lazy misrepresentation of the position given in this thread and you should be wary of siding with people's views when they don't really understand what argument they're addressing. I think it's telling when he says he's not "up to date on the lingo" as it reveals clearly that he isn't aware of or understand the concepts being discussed here. Up-to-date with what lingo, exactly? Either you understand what heternormativity, queer theory and queer liberation is or you don't...It's not a language that you learn.

But I'll ask you, since you seem to associate yourself with his position: What society is it you're referring to? What does "queering normality" mean in both a theoretical and practical sense? On what basis has anyone argued that this unexplained society can be changed by whatever "queering normality" is?

[The Feral Underclass]

I just want to clarify for those that have not read the text or for those who have just skim read the it, it makes very clear that their objective is an end to class society. For some reason people in this thread seem to be talking across that point as if they never made it. They are anti-capitalists, seeking a strategy of conflict with capitalism to end it and that should be remembered.

[The Feral Underclass]

I take issue with the assumption that all queer people share the same experiences. Being queer in New York city is fundamentally different than being queer in the shittiest part of Alabama.

Has anyone ever actually thought about how absurd it is to lump "queer" people together at all?

All queer people experience heteronormative oppression. It's not something you can hide from by living somewhere nice. It has nothing to do with your geographical location.

[Bala Perdida]

Surely there is, but I have a hard time believing it's the same experience. My point still stands.

Again, similar doesn't mean the same. A queer New Yorker has no experience as a queer Alabaman. Where is the line drawn? What about in areas where the violence is not only widespread, but approved of by the legal system? Would a gay guy from New York have the right to comment on the struggles of a gay guy from Uganda or Saudi Arabia? What about a gay guy living in, say, the Castro district of San Francisco? In what meaningful way is his experience relatable to a queer person in Riyadh?

Of course, but if they never go there, it won't matter.

It seems arbitrary. What experience does a cissexual lesbian have of what it's like to be a gay man, or a bi man, or a transsexual? If we're talking experiences where do we draw the line? at sexual orientation? Gender identity? Physical location? You can't treat "queer identity" as a monolith while simultaneously stressing the importance of personal experience.
All queer people experience violence because of their inherent rejection of the sexual orientation/gender society assigns to them. If a queer person moves out of Saudi Arabia and into the Castro district, they're still going to face violence because of their identity.
The 'privileged' queer person still knows discrimination much closer to the 'oppressed' queer person because they're both still oppressed. No matter where they go, their existence is sufficient enough to put their lives at risk.
So any attempt to 'draw a line' through the discrimination felt by queer people is pretty ridiculous given the fact that they're already abused collectively.
I don't see what there is to gain from segmenting their struggle, be it critically or tactically.

[Rugged Collectivist]

For what it's worth I don't personally think separation in politics is very useful in the long run. The point is that TFU isn't a Marxist and neither are the people who wrote this piece. It's not very rational to demand equal input in a group that doesn't share your ideology anyway, and more to the point nobody should be feeling excluded personally since the existence of this supposed group can't possibly prevent you or anyone else from organizing along your own principals with whomever you'd like.

Presumably, the text was shared so we could discuss and critique it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that since it wasn't written by Marxists it shouldn't be subjected to Marxist criticism. If not, why not?

I don't feel excluded personally. It's not a matter of exclusion, it's a matter of criticizing bad politics.


Queer liberation groups don't undermine the struggle for communism, but communists dismissing queer liberation as 'identity activism' does undermine queer liberation. We should be interested in solidarity not scoring points off one another.

The problem is that "identity activism" isn't inherently anti-capitalist, and that for every one person like TFU, who at least acknowledges the connection between capitalism and oppression, there are a hundred liberals utterly convinced that society would be alright if only those white male cishets would stop oppressing people.

Why is there so much emphasis on incorporating identity activism into anti-capitalism, but almost none on incorporating anti-capitalism into identity activism?


Well my father was Irish so I'm not sure if that's a very good example, but I get what you're saying. As I said people can literally have opinions about tactics, as they can have opinions about whatever they like. That doesn't mean they are valid.

Validation comes when an opinion turns out to be correct.



Black people often seek reformist methods to achieve certain rights. Can I have an opinion in that? Well sure I can. I reject reformism. But does that mean as a white man it's valid for me to enter discussions between black people and tell them I think they're wrong?

By simply voicing your opinion, are you not entering the discussion?


I don't know what being a black person is like and as a white man I am the very core of the oppression they are fighting.

What does this even mean?


How can my view as a white man inform black struggle? If black people want to seek reform who am I as a white man to insert myself into that discussion?Black people don't need white people telling them what is wrong with their movement. Why would and why should black reformists listen to a white man telling them their struggle against white oppression is wrong. Black radicals are already doing that anyway. I would be imposing myself in a situation that has fuck all to do with me.

I don't buy this idea that any attempt at ending white oppression is legitimate. Organizations like NoI or La Raza are objectively reactionary, and any radical, black, white, or Latin, has a vested interests in seeing them destroyed. What good is a movement against the oppression of black people if it's also anti-semitic, homophobic, sexist, and anti-communist?


All queer people experience heteronormative oppression. It's not something you can hide from by living somewhere nice. It has nothing to do with your geographical location.

But do they experience it in comparable ways?

[Rugged Collectivist]

All queer people experience violence because of their inherent rejection of the sexual orientation/gender society assigns to them. If a queer person moves out of Saudi Arabia and into the Castro district, they're still going to face violence because of their identity.
The 'privileged' queer person still knows discrimination much closer to the 'oppressed' queer person because they're both still oppressed. No matter where they go, their existence is sufficient enough to put their lives at risk.
So any attempt to 'draw a line' through the discrimination felt by queer people is pretty ridiculous given the fact that they're already abused collectively.
I don't see what there is to gain from segmenting their struggle, be it critically or tactically.

"heteronormative society" isn't uniform. There's no point in segmenting the struggle but there's also no point in pretending that queer people share the same experiences either.

[Bala Perdida]

"heteronormative society" isn't uniform. There's no point in segmenting the struggle but there's also no point in pretending that queer people share the same experiences either. Except they share a drastically similar experience, because the problem follows them literally everywhere they go.
I know this isn't your intention, but the argument is making it sound as if queer people in 'nice' areas don't have a legitimate struggle because queer people in 'bad' areas are more oppressed than they are.
Given that queer people are treated terribly in 'bad' areas. How is disconnecting them from other queer people going to help them?

[RedKobra]

But I'll ask you, since you seem to associate yourself with his position: What society is it you're referring to? What does "queering normality" mean in both a theoretical and practical sense? On what basis has anyone argued that this unexplained society can be changed by whatever "queering normality" is?

Okay I wrote a longer post, which I've saved elsewhere but quite frankly in answering your questions I felt like I was going over old ground, a lot.

In short I don't accept "Queerness" as a universal liberation struggle, not in the sense we mean when we talk of gender or racial liberation. I think Queer Liberationists represents a very small segment of the oppressed. I also don't think its ideas are of a character to liberate the masses. I think terms like heteronormative and cis and queer are utterly meaningless to most people. As it is this group under discussion can only be viewed as seperatists, as they can't liberate everyone only themselves. I have already explained my disapproval of separatism.

As I said in my previous post Xhar Xhar said it best.

[The Feral Underclass]

In short I don't accept "Queerness" as a universal liberation struggle, not in the sense we mean when we talk of gender or racial liberation.

I understand that, but I don't understand why. You think the struggles of women and black people are legitimate, but the struggle of queer people is not? You need to explain why you think that.


I think Queer Liberationists represents a very small segment of the oppressed. I also don't think its ideas are of a character to liberate the masses.

Right, but queer liberation isn't about liberating the "masses" (whoever they are), it's about transforming heternormative society into one that is not.


I think terms like heteronormative and cis and queer are utterly meaningless to most people.

But whether they are meaningless to most people doesn't alter the fact that those things exist...You can't deny that heternormativity exists. That would be like denying racism exists. You can't just say "well this term is meaningless to most people so we're just going to ignore it."


As it is this group under discussion can only be viewed as seperatists, as they can't liberate everyone only themselves. I have already explained my disapproval of separatism.

That doesn't make any sense. Queer people aren't separatists because we recognise that queer people are oppressed and that to have liberation we require to fight our oppression. You have already acknowledged the legitimacy of gender and racial struggles yet our objectives are essentially the same, so how do you justify that inconsistent position?


As I said in my previous post Xhar Xhar said it best.

What specifically do you think is best about what he said when you consider his central point was irrelevant to this discussion and his knowledge of the core subject is incredibly limited?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Words like racism and sexism are also utterly meaningless to racists and sexists. What words are recognizable to those enthralled with mass culture accounts for absolutely nothing and certainly shouldn't be used as a way to test the legitimacy of desires expressed by oppressed peoples, as if legitimacy is something any of us should be struggling for anyway. Whether straight people can get on board with queer struggle or not is unimportant, the writers of this piece obviously agree which is why they've felt it necessary to move on without them.

You more or less perfectly encapsulate why queers or anyone else would want spaces free from people like you. Who cares what struggles you think are legitimate

[The Feral Underclass]

Validation comes when an opinion turns out to be correct.

So for you this issue is about being right rather than building solidarity and understanding? I am not talking about whether an opinion is right or not. I think that reformist tactics are wrong and I am right in thinking that, but does that mean imposing that view on discussions between black people is valid? I have no place as a white person in a discussion between black people about what tactics they should use to fight white oppression. It doesn't matter whether I right.


By simply voicing your opinion, are you not entering the discussion?

Like I said, the issue isn't whether someone can literally enter discussion by speaking, it's about the legitimacy of doing so.


What does this even mean?

It means that my race privileges me in ways that black people are not, therefore I cannot be part of conversations about how black people can fight to end white privilege.


I don't buy this idea that any attempt at ending white oppression is legitimate. Organizations like NoI or La Raza are objectively reactionary, and any radical, black, white, or Latin, has a vested interests in seeing them destroyed. What good is a movement against the oppression of black people if it's also anti-semitic, homophobic, sexist, and anti-communist?

I didn't state that any attempt at ending white oppression is legitimate. In fact, I essentially said the opposite. I've also not said that straight people or white people cannot be involved in supporting queer and black struggles that they think are correct.

The issue here is about whether straight people or white people have a role to play in discussions about queer and black struggles. Like I said, we should support radical, anti-capitalist movements that are fighting white oppression, but we should not impose ourselves as white people into those movements. That is completely inappropriate all things considered.


But do they experience it in comparable ways?

It doesn't matter whether it's experienced in a comparable way. What matters is that it's experienced.

[RedKobra]

Words like racism and sexism are also utterly meaningless to racists and sexists. What words are recognizable to those enthralled with mass culture accounts for absolutely nothing and certainly shouldn't be used as a way to test the legitimacy of desires expressed by oppressed peoples, as if legitimacy is something any of us should be struggling for anyway. Whether straight people can get on board with queer struggle or not is unimportant, the writers of this piece obviously agree which is why they've felt it necessary to move on without them.

You more or less perfectly encapsulate why queers or anyone else would want spaces free from people like you. Who cares what struggles you think are legitimate

Once again I've been typecast as an enemy of "Queers". That isn't the case, again - I support LGBT rights, I am LGBT myself. What I do not accept is that in any meaningful sense a Queer movement in of itself and in antagonism with the rest of the anti-Capitalist movement, but especially Communists can bring about any meaningful change in society. The only way for Queer people to achieve emancipation is to embody the aims of any minority group and fight alongside the mass of the working class to end Capitalism.
To achieve that end insurrection, talk of separating themselves of, open hostility to "heteronormatives" which accounts for the vast majority of people and acts of pre-emptive violence won't get the job done. All it'll do is leave "Queers" on the outside looking in wondering why they're out of sight out of mind apart from the occasional demonisation story.

My objection to the article, as opposed to the movement is that it essentially wants to pick a fight with everyone that's not queer and that is just ridiculous.

[The Feral Underclass]

Once again I've been typecast as an enemy of "Queers". That isn't the case, again - I support LGBT rights, I am LGBT myself. What I do not accept is that in any meaningful sense a Queer movement in of itself and in antagonism with the rest of the anti-Capitalist movement, but especially Communists can bring about any meaningful change in society.

Just saying you're not an enemy of queer people doesn't make it true. Especially when you invert the word queer and then go on to explain why you oppose our movement.

And with all due respect, I think it's ridiculous for a member of the CPB to lecture any one about meaningful change or indeed not antagonising the "anti-capitalist movement."

In any case, who are these people who have argued for a "queer movement in of itself (sic)"? No one is arguing for a queer movement that operates separately to fighting capitalism. The article itself explicitly says the authors seek to end class society.

The only possible reason that there would be antagonism with the rest of the "anti-capitalist movement" is if people like you continue refusing to understand the objectives of queer politics.

Also, supporting LGBT rights is fundamentally part of the problem we face in fighting our oppression. Without a proper critique of the concept of lgbt rights, we are reinforcing the assimilation of queer people into heternormative society.


The only way for Queer people to achieve emancipation is to embody the aims of any minority group and fight alongside the mass of the working class to end Capitalism.

Let me try this again: the end of capitalism isn't going to destroy the remnants of the capitalist superstructure. The defeat of capital at the hands of the proletariat doesn't mean that heteronormative narratives, institutions and assumptions are going to suddenly not exist any more.

As I've repeatedly said, this issue is about more than just ending capitalism.


To achieve that end insurrection, talk of separating themselves of, open hostility to "heteronormatives" which accounts for the vast majority of people and acts of pre-emptive violence won't get the job done. All it'll do is leave "Queers" on the outside looking in wondering why they're out of sight out of mind apart from the occasional demonisation story.

Sigh.

"Heternormatives" isn't a thing. It's not a concept you apply to individuals. Heternormativity is understood as the institutional and narrative structures of oppression within capitalist society that reinforce and legitimise heterosexist social norms about gender and sexuality,

Now, on the issues of tactics, this is a political issue and of course someone who is part of a insipid organisation like the CPB is never going to understand or grasp insurrectionary tactics and the need for exclusive organisational venues, so I'm not even going to try and argue with you about that.


My objection to the article, as opposed to the movement is that it essentially wants to pick a fight with everyone that's not queer and that is just ridiculous.

That is an incredibly petty interpretation of the article. It doesn't want to pick a fight with everyone that isn't queer at all. The fight it wants is against those who seek to maintain heteronormative society. That would, I'm afraid, include you. Now I don't say that in an effort to antagonise you, but in the hope that you will reflect on that and do something about it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I wouldn't trust Xhar-Xhar's response. His analysis on pretty much everything is incredibly one-dimensional (and invariably the same), which he seems to be totally content with, but it doesn't really address the nature of the discussion.

Of course capitalism is the cause of oppression, of course the proletariat are the only social force to destroy capitalism and so on and so on, but we already know this and we've already addressed that. Xhar-Xhar tends to reject nuance, seemingly as a matter of principle, and so when you say he has explained your thoughts, has he really done that? All he seems to have done is state a paint-by-numbers analysis that you and I have already agreed on. This discussion is about more than that, right? This issue is about more than class struggle. What you have to remember is that class society and heternormativity, while linked, are two different things.

Moreover, when Xhar-Xhar says things like "the notion that society can be changed by "queering normality" and whatnot (I'm not up to date on the lingo) is such brazen idealism I don't know what to say" then it is evident he doesn't really understand this discussion. That is a gross and lazy misrepresentation of the position given in this thread and you should be wary of siding with people's views when they don't really understand what argument they're addressing. I think it's telling when he says he's not "up to date on the lingo" as it reveals clearly that he isn't aware of or understand the concepts being discussed here. Up-to-date with what lingo, exactly? Either you understand what heternormativity, queer theory and queer liberation is or you don't...It's not a language that you learn.

But I'll ask you, since you seem to associate yourself with his position: What society is it you're referring to? What does "queering normality" mean in both a theoretical and practical sense? On what basis has anyone argued that this unexplained society can be changed by whatever "queering normality" is?

I admit, I might not particularly like you, but even I am impressed by how you've managed to turn this into some sort of hilariously passive-aggressive indirect response to me. It's not quite up to the high standards set by Rafiq's "old man yelling at people because they thanked someone else's post" rants, but it's getting there.

Now, in case you didn't notice, I was replying to Ethics Gradient. They claimed that "straight people" are "the source of" homophobia. I pointed out this was not as uncontroversial a theory as they seemed to imply, and that in fact most Marxists view the problem in a different way. This does not mean I must now write an essay on the family in capitalism and how it gives rise to anti-homosexual bigotry. (In fact no one, including the person I was responding to, has asked for clarifications, so I assume they are familiar with at least the outlines of the theory.) And in particular it does not mean I have to moderate my position to appear "nuanced" to you. If something is simple, then treating it as extremely complicated and nuanced and intractable is not good theory, it's just a way to water down your statements until they don't mean anything anymore.

And for someone to complain that I don't recognise nuance and then state "Either you understand what heternormativity, queer theory and queer liberation is or you don't..." is just hilarious. No, the academic field called "queer theory" (and it is an academic field, and not some sort of revolutionary theory) is not a unified theory; the people who write these texts do not have the same theories and do not use the terms in the same meaning. People who are influenced by Foucault do not say the same things as people who are influenced by Peirce etc. In fact the term "queer" itself is used differently by different people in "queer theory". I am not familiar with the current lingo because I literally stopped keeping track; the last time I read any of these works semiotics and Peirce were all the rage. Merleau-Ponty was sort of becoming popular; I remember a very good text, "Throwing Like a Girl". Forgot the author. And all of these things are interesting and so on, but politically they're suicidal, and their rhetoric is dense (the article in the OP isn't really dense, it's just overblown and so macho it makes me want to laugh).

And, look, you can pretend that every anarchist is actually an "I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST" pseudo-ultraleft-Maoist-whatever like you, but in fact many anarchists do not think that the proletariat is the only group with the social power to end capitalism. Book Chin, whose supposed ideological heirs you were praising some time ago, certainly did not. And many if not most anarchists do not locate the causes of special oppression in capitalism as such, but in "patriarchy", "heteronormativity" etc. which are viewed as separate from capitalism but "intersecting" (a lot of these theories of course originated with academic Maoists who had to explain why the socialist paradise utopias of the USSR, China and Albania - cross out one or more states according to your preferences - were so shit when it came to women, gay people etc.). So yes, pointing out the difference between such positions and Marxism is "by the numbers".

And one statement about "living in conflict with capital" suddenly makes the authors of this piece into class-struggle socialists? Yeah right.

[Jimmie Higgins]

On a side note, people keep bringing up the Castro as a place without much gay oppression but ironically this place, famous as a refuge for people all over the u.s., is pretty gentrified and not as safe a place to be poor and queer or a runaway and queer or black and queer. The rich gay home and business owners want to keep the cachet and tourism, but they also want to close the services and shelters that were built up during an era of liberationist-oriented agitation. It's similar with the height where shops want to sell tie-dye t-shirts and hippy paraphnelia while clearing the streets of the crustie and hippy runaways. Ah neoliberalism.

But the point is that there are class divisions among oppressed people. People talk about cultural assimilation and I think sometimes it's a half-recognition of this divide. Middle class people don't really need liberation as much as a "safe space" or just equal rights because they can pay to avoid some kinds of oppression and it's their position in class society that allows them to do that to an extent.



Okay I wrote a longer post, which I've saved elsewhere but quite frankly in answering your questions I felt like I was going over old ground, a lot.

In short I don't accept "Queerness" as a universal liberation struggle, not in the sense we mean when we talk of gender or racial liberation. I think Queer Liberationists represents a very small segment of the oppressed. I also don't think its ideas are of a character to liberate the masses. I think terms like heteronormative and cis and queer are utterly meaningless to most people. As it is this group under discussion can only be viewed as seperatists, as they can't liberate everyone only themselves. I have already explained my disapproval of separatism.

As I said in my previous post Xhar Xhar said it best.i don't think it makes much sense to rank oppression, maybe there are times when one group is more targeted at a specific point for state violence or social marginalization, but when talking about a general oppression that exists through society, it does have wider ramifications. Afterall, blacks are not the largest oppressed group in the u.s., but their oppression is also one of the major keystones of the u.s. Class system. Or Jews in Eastern Europe or Copts in Egypt etc.


"Queer" and not queer are united in a sense of how society is shaped under capitalism so I think there is a universal aspect to queer liberation because oppression of the excluded group is also connected to the conditioning of what is not-queer. Historically the concept of gay sexuality (not relationships romantic and sexual themselves, but the concept of a condition of gayness) led to the concept of straight sexuality and it was wrapped up in a whole lot of how industrial class society developed in and reproduced itself. In a larger social view, while all oppressions are specific, I also can't see how gender oppression and queer oppression are not related. To be a man means to not be a "woman" and to be straight means not to be queer and to be queer means not to blur those lines and there's an awful lot of policing of these lines from the top of society down to bullying in schools and bashing in the street.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Except they share a drastically similar experience, because the problem follows them literally everywhere they go.
I know this isn't your intention, but the argument is making it sound as if queer people in 'nice' areas don't have a legitimate struggle because queer people in 'bad' areas are more oppressed than they are.
Given that queer people are treated terribly in 'bad' areas. How is disconnecting them from other queer people going to help them?

Of course queer people in 'nice' areas face legitimate struggles. My point is that even being queer, according to the guidelines laid out by TFU and his ilk, doesn't necessarily entitle you to speak for 'the queer community' as a monolithic group.

Let me give an example. Would it be okay for 2 br00tal 4 u queer revolutionists like TFU and placenta cream to criticize "assimilationists" in places where being a queer person is a literal death sentence? Let's face it, assimilation is a much easier goal than the destruction of heteronormative society, and if Saudi or Ugandan queer people want to pursue that route, who are these English and American "queer radicals" to critique them?

TFU is trying to tell heteros to back off because they don't have the same experiences, but since he's a self described queer, he thinks it's his god given right to determine the correct course for all queers everywhere, even though there are queer people in this very thread who disagree with him, based on their experiences.


Words like racism and sexism are also utterly meaningless to racists and sexists. What words are recognizable to those enthralled with mass culture accounts for absolutely nothing and certainly shouldn't be used as a way to test the legitimacy of desires expressed by oppressed peoples, as if legitimacy is something any of us should be struggling for anyway. Whether straight people can get on board with queer struggle or not is unimportant, the writers of this piece obviously agree which is why they've felt it necessary to move on without them.

You more or less perfectly encapsulate why queers or anyone else would want spaces free from people like you. Who cares what struggles you think are legitimate

Results are all that matters. Queers separatism will never put an end to heteronormative society. 'Dropping out' is bullshit, unless they move to some island and start their own society. I'll admit I haven't had a chance to read the piece. Maybe I'll critique it properly when I do, but this conversation is getting stale quickly.


So for you this issue is about being right rather than building solidarity and understanding? I am not talking about whether an opinion is right or not. I think that reformist tactics are wrong and I am right in thinking that, but does that mean imposing that view on discussions between black people is valid? I have no place as a white person in a discussion between black people about what tactics they should use to fight white oppression. It doesn't matter whether I right.

How a black movement against racism conducts itself has repercussions for everyone, not just black people. I'll use the Nation of Islam again as an example. They struggle against white oppression, but at the expense of women, Jews, queer people, and the working class. Any member of these groups would have a vested interest in seeing the NoI dismantled, if they ever managed to gain any influence.

I mean holy shit. Should we support ISIS on the grounds that that's how Sunni Iraqis chose to resist the US and the Shiite government? After all, who are we to dictate their struggle against imperialism?



It means that my race privileges me in ways that black people are not, therefore I cannot be part of conversations about how black people can fight to end white privilege.

You being privileged doesn't mean white people are "the core" of racism.

As I've demonstrated, the fight to end white privilege will affect you.


I didn't state that any attempt at ending white oppression is legitimate. In fact, I essentially said the opposite. I've also not said that straight people or white people cannot be involved in supporting queer and black struggles that they think are correct.

But if you take a side, wouldn't you be "imposing" your view on black people? Why involve yourself at all if you don't think it's your place.


The issue here is about whether straight people or white people have a role to play in discussions about queer and black struggles. Like I said, we should support radical, anti-capitalist movements that are fighting white oppression, but we should not impose ourselves as white people into those movements. That is completely inappropriate all things considered.


Supporting radical, anti-capitalist, movements fighting against white oppression means exposing and defeating opportunist reactionaries like NoI and Al Sharpton.

I really don't think most black people are as concerned about the racial purity of their movements as you are. Strange.


It doesn't matter whether it's experienced in a comparable way. What matters is that it's experienced.

It's experienced in a completely different framework. A Saudi queer person would likely have different ideas about how to fight heteronormativity than you, given the vastly different conditions they are under.

[The Feral Underclass]

Rugged, I'm at work now so can't respond properly until later, but I just want to say I think there is not a lot of talking at cross purposes. I think we both generally agree, it's just the specifics are being blown out of proportions. For example, talking about racial purity and accusing me of telling all queer people the correct course of action is not correct. Neither is your assertion that any one is calling for separatism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[~Spectre]

If you are unable to speak about the "totality of a person's experience" that would also include the political tactics they use as a consequence of that experience.

What's the evidence for this claim? Why would not being another person mean being incapable of being right on tactics in a shared geographical region?

Not having been stabbed doesn't mean a doctor can't opine on the best way to treat a stab wound.

Ultimately, we must stick with logic. Views are right or wrong independent of their speaker.

[Quail]

If you take two people in a similar situation in the world, one who is straight/cis and the other who is queer, chances are the queer person has a much better understanding of the dynamics of oppression simply from experiencing that oppression. When you're faced with oppression you're generally forced to think about it a hell of a lot more than someone who doesn't face it.

I think without that kind of "insider" knowledge it is much harder to find solutions which respect people's marginalised identities.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Of course queer people in 'nice' areas face legitimate struggles. My point is that even being queer, according to the guidelines laid out by TFU and his ilk, doesn't necessarily entitle you to speak for 'the queer community' as a monolithic group.

Let me give an example. Would it be okay for 2 br00tal 4 u queer revolutionists like TFU and placenta cream to criticize "assimilationists" in places where being a queer person is a literal death sentence? Let's face it, assimilation is a much easier goal than the destruction of heteronormative society, and if Saudi or Ugandan queer people want to pursue that route, who are these English and American "queer radicals" to critique them?

TFU is trying to tell heteros to back off because they don't have the same experiences, but since he's a self described queer, he thinks it's his god given right to determine the correct course for all queers everywhere, even though there are queer people in this very thread who disagree with him, based on their experiences.



Results are all that matters. Queers separatism will never put an end to heteronormative society. 'Dropping out' is bullshit, unless they move to some island and start their own society. I'll admit I haven't had a chance to read the piece. Maybe I'll critique it properly when I do, but this conversation is getting stale quickly.



How a black movement against racism conducts itself has repercussions for everyone, not just black people. I'll use the Nation of Islam again as an example. They struggle against white oppression, but at the expense of women, Jews, queer people, and the working class. Any member of these groups would have a vested interest in seeing the NoI dismantled, if they ever managed to gain any influence.

I mean holy shit. Should we support ISIS on the grounds that that's how Sunni Iraqis chose to resist the US and the Shiite government? After all, who are we to dictate their struggle against imperialism?




You being privileged doesn't mean white people are "the core" of racism.

As I've demonstrated, the fight to end white privilege will affect you.



But if you take a side, wouldn't you be "imposing" your view on black people? Why involve yourself at all if you don't think it's your place.



Supporting radical, anti-capitalist, movements fighting against white oppression means exposing and defeating opportunist reactionaries like NoI and Al Sharpton.

I really don't think most black people are as concerned about the racial purity of their movements as you are. Strange.



It's experienced in a completely different framework. A Saudi queer person would likely have different ideas about how to fight heteronormativity than you, given the vastly different conditions they are under.

I'm certainly not in favor of separatism and I don't think anyone else in this thread is ether. What I'm arguing for is autonomy; for anyone who wants it. If two crews knock over different banks in the same city, they've cooperated even if they were not in direct contact with one another and had no involvement with each others planning. This is the kind of model I'm in favor of. The idea of a singular titanic entity rising to smash class society is a holdover from the 1800s, instead what we should aim for the proliferations of hundreds and thousands of autonomous groups that are at once sovereign in their demands, outlook and tactics but united through struggle. This shouldn't imply heady ideas of 'left unity', in fact it's the opposite this is autonomy pure and simple. In this fashion people are free to follow their own motivations rather than subject themselves to a party line which might rank their priorities below others, which as we can see in this thread is a real issue. If groups want to downplay or dismiss queer struggle, they should be free to, but they shouldn't be surprised when queer people don't participate in their organization or actions. And depending on what their line really is, they shouldn't be surprised if they one day discover they themselves are a target

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you take two people in a similar situation in the world, one who is straight/cis and the other who is queer, chances are the queer person has a much better understanding of the dynamics of oppression simply from experiencing that oppression. When you're faced with oppression you're generally forced to think about it a hell of a lot more than someone who doesn't face it.

I think without that kind of "insider" knowledge it is much harder to find solutions which respect people's marginalised identities.

I don't think this is actually true. If you consider two people, in otherwise similar circumstances, of which one is gay or trans*, and the other is not, then the first person is more likely to acknowledge the existence of homophobic and transphobic bigotry. But, first of all, that does not mean we can justifiably assume that someone who is gay or trans* even acknowledges the existence of their own oppression - it sounds paradoxical, but quite a few gay and trans* people have shockingly backward ideas.

Second, acknowledging the existence of oppression does not mean that one has a good grasp of the nature and the sources of this oppression, and a consistent political programme toward ending that oppression. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, most gay people, like most people, are liberals of some description (in the UK, at least). They do think about oppression, and they genuinely do have good intentions, but their approach is essentially bourgeois.

On the other hand, communists, who are a tiny minority of the population, need to think about the oppression of queer and trans* people, even if they personally couldn't give a damn, as it relates to the way in which capitalism is reproduced.

And what does "respecting marginalised identities" mean, here? A solution is a solution, and it certainly won't respect identities so much as dissolve them.


Okay I wrote a longer post, which I've saved elsewhere but quite frankly in answering your questions I felt like I was going over old ground, a lot.

In short I don't accept "Queerness" as a universal liberation struggle, not in the sense we mean when we talk of gender or racial liberation. I think Queer Liberationists represents a very small segment of the oppressed. I also don't think its ideas are of a character to liberate the masses. I think terms like heteronormative and cis and queer are utterly meaningless to most people. As it is this group under discussion can only be viewed as seperatists, as they can't liberate everyone only themselves. I have already explained my disapproval of separatism.

As I said in my previous post Xhar Xhar said it best.

I just saw this, and I would, with due respect, like to dissociate myself from such statements. The importance of the struggle against homophobia does not originate from the number of people affected (and keep in mind that, first of all, there are no reliable estimates of the number of people who are gay, and second, what anti-homosexual persecution lacks in numbers it often makes up in ferocity), but its connection to the way in which capitalism is reproduced daily, and the vanguard role of the proletariat in the defense of all of the oppressed.

I think the people who uphold "queer theory" are wrong. But the job of communists is not to ignore gay and trans* people, but be more radical in their defense than "queer theory" people.

[Quail]

All I can say to the above, really, is why do the straight/cis men of the anarchist and communist movement consistently have shitty gender politics, while the queer people and the women don't? What is it about being a straight/cis man that means your gender politics have a higher chance of being either rubbish or non-existent? It must be either because they don't think it affects them and so don't care enough to read about it, or because they don't fully understand the dynamics of oppression.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

All I can say to the above, really, is why do the straight/cis men of the anarchist and communist movement consistently have shitty gender politics, while the queer people and the women don't? What is it about being a straight/cis man that means your gender politics have a higher chance of being either rubbish or non-existent? It must be either because they don't think it affects them and so don't care enough to read about it, or because they don't fully understand the dynamics of oppression.

Again, that hasn't been my experience at all. Many of the straight people I have talked to in the ICL have impeccable politics when it comes to gender and sexuality. Whereas the politics of the closet-case Grant and his Militant Tendency when it comes to homosexuality were fairly notorious.

[BIXX]

Let me give an example. Would it be okay for 2 br00tal 4 u queer revolutionists like TFU and placenta cream to criticize "assimilationists" in places where being a queer person is a literal death sentence? Let's face it, assimilation is a much easier goal than the destruction of heteronormative society, and if Saudi or Ugandan queer people want to pursue that route, who are these English and American "queer radicals" to critique them?


Then who are you to criticize people for reforms? Surely those are easier goals than destruction of class society. If liberal proles want to go that route, who are you to criticize them?

I'm done with you, you're a fucking idiot.

[Art Vandelay]

Then who are you to criticize people for reforms? Surely those are easier goals than destruction of class society. If liberal proles want to go that route, who are you to criticize them?

I'm done with you, you're a fucking idiot.

The irony here is that you clearly don't understand his point. He wasn't arguing that you can't critique the strategies employed by certain groups within society - on the contrary he was arguing the exact opposite. It would be incredibly paternalistic and patronizing not to do so, if you saw their tactics as counter productive.

I am pretty sure I can count the times you've posted anything of substance on this forum with my left hand. In my opinion, you're a reactionary and how you haven't been infracted for your routine of cursing folks out who disagree with you, is beyond me.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Organizations dominated by straight white men may be capable of coming to correct positions on any given issue but these issues receive little emphasis due to the subjectivity at work within those organizations which is a result of the makeup of their membership. The ICL's position on sexual issues is something I'm suspicious of, do you have an article where they address it directly?

[Art Vandelay]

Organizations dominated by straight white men may be capable of coming to correct positions on any given issue but these issues receive little emphasis due to the subjectivity at work within those organizations which is a result of the makeup of their membership. The ICL's position on sexual issues is something I'm suspicious of, do you have an article where they address it directly?

What, in particular, are you looking for?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I guess I'm looking for something that isn't a smokescreen for child abuse, not to accuse anyone or try to trick anyone into getting themselves banned if we can avoid going down that road

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Organizations dominated by straight white men may be capable of coming to correct positions on any given issue but these issues receive little emphasis due to the subjectivity at work within those organizations which is a result of the makeup of their membership. The ICL's position on sexual issues is something I'm suspicious of, do you have an article where they address it directly?

I mean, there are dozens of articles on the subject, starting from when the organisation was founded, and participated in the protests against Anita Bryant.

And I wouldn't say the issue receives little emphasis; for example, the early ICL worked to attract gay militants, including a high-profile absorption of the majority of the Red and Lavender Union/Red Flag Union.

I mentioned the ICL because I am familiar with their politics more than I am familiar with the work of other groups; but I would say much of the same could be said about the Freedom Socialist Party, Revolutionary Socialist League before it became Love and Rage etc.

[Art Vandelay]

870 is probably better served to link you to something, as the only articles I'm aware of, that deal with this issue, are the ones I've read in workers vanguard. However, I did come across this on a google search, perhaps it's what you're looking for.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1004/homosexual-oppression.html

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

870 is probably better served to link you to something, as the only articles I'm aware of, that deal with this issue, are the ones I've read in workers vanguard. However, I did come across this on a google search, perhaps it's what you're looking for.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1004/homosexual-oppression.html

Yes, that is an important document. I think the whole thing is online as well, but I can't find it right now; if it isn't, you can probably write to the ICL and get it for cheap.

[consuming negativity]

i don't think it's possible for anybody to deny other people their opinions. what the fuck? why are you even arguing about it? and what the fuck do trotskyists have to do with this thread? you people will argue about anything

look, my take on this: if people don't want you around, why do you even want to be around? let them have their space if that's what they want.

[The Feral Underclass]

I like that my comment that queer people should find straight people's commentary on queer struggles unwelcome has developed into people having their opinions denied. Lol.

[BIXX]

I am pretty sure I can count the times you've posted anything of substance on this forum with my left hand. In my opinion, you're a reactionary and how you haven't been infracted for your routine of cursing folks out who disagree with you, is beyond me.

I believe I actually have been infracted. But that was when I only cursed someone out, and dragged the thread off topic.

The thing is that when you post something of equal or greater substance than the thread at large (which is what I tend to do) then there is no reason to receive an infraction.

Now, to the point.

I did misunderstand RCs point, however, their point was still stupid. We aren't arguing what all lgbt people should do to counter their oppression, rather we are outlining why we prefer to keep cishet people out of it unless invited to offer their opinions, and why we prefer the methodology we do.

Also, I wish when a discussion of queerness comes up, folks wouldn't start talking in terms of LGBT. They are two different things.

This thread is precisely why I dislike trotskyists, and on a more general note, most Marxists. I can't remember who said it earlier in this thread, but it is worthwhile to mention that queer liberation doesn't harm anti-capitalist struggle (and in fact queer liberation must include anti-capitalist, anti-sexist, anti-racist etc... struggle or else it is not queer), but the way communists interact with queer liberation consistently undermines queer liberation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Let me give an example. Would it be okay for 2 br00tal 4 u queer revolutionists like TFU and placenta cream to criticize "assimilationists" in places where being a queer person is a literal death sentence? Let's face it, assimilation is a much easier goal than the destruction of heteronormative society, and if Saudi or Ugandan queer people want to pursue that route, who are these English and American "queer radicals" to critique them?

There is a difference between taking measures to protect yourself while trying to survive in conditions like the ones in Uganda and Saudi Arabia and actively seeking to assimilate yourself into heternormative society...

We should absolutely criticise queer people everywhere for seeking an agenda of assimilation, but we shouldn't criticise queer people for taking steps to protect themselves. Does that protection mean not attempting to build a queer liberation movement? Why would it? Do you propose to communists in such places to just become capitalists because it's easier?


TFU is trying to tell heteros to back off because they don't have the same experiences, but since he's a self described queer, he thinks it's his god given right to determine the correct course for all queers everywhere, even though there are queer people in this very thread who disagree with him, based on their experiences.

I don't really understand this paragraph or where it's really coming from. I'm not the inventor of queer politics, I'm merely it's proponent. My objective as a queer liberationist is the defeat of heternormativity and there are right ways and wrong ways of achieving that.


Results are all that matters. Queers separatism will never put an end to heteronormative society. 'Dropping out' is bullshit, unless they move to some island and start their own society. I'll admit I haven't had a chance to read the piece. Maybe I'll critique it properly when I do, but this conversation is getting stale quickly.

Well when you do read it you'll see that no one is proposing separatism or "dropping out."


How a black movement against racism conducts itself has repercussions for everyone, not just black people. I'll use the Nation of Islam again as an example. They struggle against white oppression, but at the expense of women, Jews, queer people, and the working class. Any member of these groups would have a vested interest in seeing the NoI dismantled, if they ever managed to gain any influence.[/

I mean holy shit. Should we support ISIS on the grounds that that's how Sunni Iraqis chose to resist the US and the Shiite government? After all, who are we to dictate their struggle against imperialism?

Yes we have a vested interest in those things and like I said, we should support movements that are fighting for the things we think are right, but how does that position inform how we engage with these movements? This isn't about the content of our opinions, this is about how we relate those opinions to movements we cannot relate to.


You being privileged doesn't mean white people are "the core" of racism.

As I've demonstrated, the fight to end white privilege will affect you.

I think historically it is perfectly evident that white people are the core component of racial oppression against black people. Of course the fight to end white privilege will affect me, but how I as a white person relate to that struggle is the issue here.


But if you take a side, wouldn't you be "imposing" your view on black people? Why involve yourself at all if you don't think it's your place.

Well because I don't take this binary position that you seem to have. It's not one or the other. I think the correct position is far more nuanced than this. I don't think that taking a side and also not imposing your view on black struggle are mutually exclusive, I think that is the right approach.


Supporting radical, anti-capitalist, movements fighting against white oppression means exposing and defeating opportunist reactionaries like NoI and Al Sharpton.

And it should be black people who are leading that struggle.


I really don't think most black people are as concerned about the racial purity of their movements as you are. Strange.

I am not proposing that the struggle against white oppression should exclusively involve black people and no one else.


It's experienced in a completely different framework. A Saudi queer person would likely have different ideas about how to fight heteronormativity than you, given the vastly different conditions they are under.

I agree, it is experienced in a completely different framework and people will have different ideas and methods of fighting heternormativity, which is why I said earlier in this thread that we need a diversity of tactics. But I also said we need unity of purpose and that is recognising what liberation means, and what is preventing that liberation from occurring. This means that even though we have a diversity of tactics -- fundamentally -- the conflict is the same everywhere.

[The Feral Underclass]

What's the evidence for this claim? Why would not being another person mean being incapable of being right on tactics in a shared geographical region?

Not having been stabbed doesn't mean a doctor can't opine on the best way to treat a stab wound.

Ultimately, we must stick with logic. Views are right or wrong independent of their speaker.

I think I have misled our conversation in that I don't think the issue is actually about whether someone can be right or not.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I'm certainly not in favor of separatism and I don't think anyone else in this thread is ether. What I'm arguing for is autonomy; for anyone who wants it. If two crews knock over different banks in the same city, they've cooperated even if they were not in direct contact with one another and had no involvement with each others planning. This is the kind of model I'm in favor of. The idea of a singular titanic entity rising to smash class society is a holdover from the 1800s, instead what we should aim for the proliferations of hundreds and thousands of autonomous groups that are at once sovereign in their demands, outlook and tactics but united through struggle. This shouldn't imply heady ideas of 'left unity', in fact it's the opposite this is autonomy pure and simple. In this fashion people are free to follow their own motivations rather than subject themselves to a party line which might rank their priorities below others, which as we can see in this thread is a real issue. If groups want to downplay or dismiss queer struggle, they should be free to, but they shouldn't be surprised when queer people don't participate in their organization or actions. And depending on what their line really is, they shouldn't be surprised if they one day discover they themselves are a target

Imagine what those crews could do if they collaborated with each other...

Disparate, tiny cells with conflicting agendas will never accomplish anything substantial.


All I can say to the above, really, is why do the straight/cis men of the anarchist and communist movement consistently have shitty gender politics, while the queer people and the women don't? What is it about being a straight/cis man that means your gender politics have a higher chance of being either rubbish or non-existent? It must be either because they don't think it affects them and so don't care enough to read about it, or because they don't fully understand the dynamics of oppression.

How do you come to the conclusion that someone's gender politics are rubbish? What criteria do you use?


There is a difference between taking measures to protect yourself while trying to survive in conditions like the ones in Uganda and Saudi Arabia and actively seeking to assimilate yourself into heternormative society...

Fair point.


We should absolutely criticise queer people everywhere for seeking an agenda of assimilation, but we shouldn't criticise queer people for taking steps to protect themselves. Does that protection mean not attempting to build a queer liberation movement?

When did I say this?


I don't really understand this paragraph or where it's really coming from. I'm not the inventor of queer politics, I'm merely it's proponent.

I addressed it to you as a proponent of queer politics, not the inventor.


My objective as a queer liberationist is the defeat of heternormativity and there are right ways and wrong ways of achieving that.

It's funny because this is exactly what I've been saying all along. Where we disagree is that I don't think being queer automatically grants you special knowledge about the source of queer oppression and how best to defeat it. A queer person would almost certainly feel a greater urgency to do so, and they would have a better understanding of what that oppression actually feels like, but the diagnosis and the cure are a matter of empirical evidence and logical reasoning.


Well when you do read it you'll see that no one is proposing separatism or "dropping out."

Fair. I still haven't read it, and I doubt I'll get to it before next week.


Yes we have a vested interest in those things and like I said, we should support movements that are fighting for the things we think are right, but how does that position inform how we engage with these movements? This isn't about the content of our opinions, this is about how we relate those opinions to movements we cannot relate to.

If we have a vested interest in these movements then we are relating to them in some way.


I think historically it is perfectly evident that white people are the core component of racial oppression against black people. Of course the fight to end white privilege will affect me, but how I as a white person relate to that struggle is the issue here.

Racism doesn't emanate from white people, it's an ideology that capitalist society imposes on them because it has to to survive.


Well because I don't take this binary position that you seem to have. It's not one or the other. I think the correct position is far more nuanced than this. I don't think that taking a side and also not imposing your view on black struggle are mutually exclusive, I think that is the right approach.


How would one "impose" their position though? It's not like black people have to struggle a certain way because I said so. If they don't, I might say they're wrong, but that's hardly an imposition. They're free to ignore my opinion.


And it should be black people who are leading that struggle.


Why? The implication is that there should be separate movements against racism based on one's race. A Latin American movement against racism, an Asian movement against racism, etc. What would this accomplish?


I am not proposing that the struggle against white oppression should exclusively involve black people and no one else.

You seem to be proposing it should involve all (non-white?) people, but separately.


I agree, it is experienced in a completely different framework and people will have different ideas and methods of fighting heternormativity, which is why I said earlier in this thread that we need a diversity of tactics. But I also said we need unity of purpose and that is recognising what liberation means, and what is preventing that liberation from occurring. This means that even though we have a diversity of tactics -- fundamentally -- the conflict is the same everywhere.

I don't really have any comment on this.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Imagine what those crews could do if they collaborated with each other...

Disparate, tiny cells with conflicting agendas will never accomplish anything substantial.



How do you come to the conclusion that someone's gender politics are rubbish? What criteria do you use?



Fair point.



When did I say this?



I addressed it to you as a proponent of queer politics, not the inventor.



It's funny because this is exactly what I've been saying all along. Where we disagree is that I don't think being queer automatically grants you special knowledge about the source of queer oppression and how best to defeat it. A queer person would almost certainly feel a greater urgency to do so, and they would have a better understanding of what that oppression actually feels like, but the diagnosis and the cure are a matter of empirical evidence and logical reasoning.



Fair. I still haven't read it, and I doubt I'll get to it before next week.



If we have a vested interest in these movements then we are relating to them in some way.



Racism doesn't emanate from white people, it's an ideology that capitalist society imposes on them because it has to to survive.



How would one "impose" their position though? It's not like black people have to struggle a certain way because I said so. If they don't, I might say they're wrong, but that's hardly an imposition. They're free to ignore my opinion.



Why? The implication is that there should be separate movements against racism based on one's race. A Latin American movement against racism, an Asian movement against racism, etc. What would this accomplish?



You seem to be proposing it should involve all (non-white?) people, but separately.



I don't really have any comment on this.

They are collaborating, they just aren't forced into subordinate positions. Again its autonomy, not separatism.

[Invader Zim]

Then who are you to criticize people for reforms? Surely those are easier goals than destruction of class society. If liberal proles want to go that route, who are you to criticize them?

I'm done with you, you're a fucking idiot.

Jeez... Reading you, it's almost like post-colonialism never happened.

[Quail]

How do you come to the conclusion that someone's gender politics are rubbish? What criteria do you use?


... Generally that their ideas or actions are sexist, homophobic, etc. It's usually quite obvious.

Also, in response to 870 earlier... Maybe you're just living on a different planet, but the shitty gender politics of the heavily male-dominated left are pretty well documented. Additionally, it's possible (and anecdotally, not uncommon) for men/straight/cis people to be well-versed in theory yet utterly incapable of applying that to their personal conduct and political organising.

[The Feral Underclass]

When did I say this?

You didn't, but to assimilate into heteronormativity, which is what you were suggesting, necessarily means not building a queer movement. I was simply elaborating on my point that even if you live in Saudi Arabia that doesn't mean you have to assimilate and it absolutely means you need to build a queer movement.


It's funny because this is exactly what I've been saying all along. Where we disagree is that I don't think being queer automatically grants you special knowledge about the source of queer oppression and how best to defeat it. A queer person would almost certainly feel a greater urgency to do so, and they would have a better understanding of what that oppression actually feels like, but the diagnosis and the cure are a matter of empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

Yes, we've been saying the same thing, but this issue for me is whose responsibility is it to raise these issues, discuss these tactics and make decisions on them?

This is a really crude analogy, but if you were in the home of two people you were friends with and an argument developed between those two people, who love each other, about a financial issue that was affecting them, and you had a particular view, would you consider it appropriate to get in between that argument and give your opinion on that situation? Even if you believed you were right? I mean, perhaps would be invited to give your opinion, or you would take your friend aside and have private conversations, being involved in helping with that financial situation in any way they needed you to, but would you think it was okay to step between the argument and just start telling them what you thought was right and wrong?


If we have a vested interest in these movements then we are relating to them in some way.

But we cannot relate to them as black people, right? (Well I can't.) And that's the core of the issue.


Racism doesn't emanate from white people, it's an ideology that capitalist society imposes on them because it has to to survive.

Racism specifically emanates from white people. We are a species of people, if it didn't emanate from us, how would it exist? Capitalism is a social relationship that gives rise to these ideological structures, but without people there would be no capitalism, would there? Capitalism's ideology is maintained through people and the structures and narratives we construct.

Capitalism (base) > Racism & Heternormativity (Superstructure) > Humans > Superstructure > Base. This is how capitalism maintains itself and people are reinforced by those dominating ideologies which form their social behaviour. I am conditioned by capitalism as a white man with all the privilege that brings me. A position in society that comes at the direct detriment of black people.


How would one "impose" their position though? It's not like black people have to struggle a certain way because I said so. If they don't, I might say they're wrong, but that's hardly an imposition. They're free to ignore my opinion.

This argument assumes that white people and black people have equal positions within class society.

On racial issues, Western society is fundamentally predicated on the supremacy of white people. If a white man in a room dressed in a suit stands up and speaks to an audience of white people about providing a solution and then a black man stands up dressed in casual clothing and a hooded top and says similar things with an equally valid but different solution, who are those white people more inclined to listen to? The white man in the suit or the black man in the hooded top? Probably the white guy, right? That same result happens every time that white man in the suit stands up and speaks. Everyone listens to him say the things he wants to say. They congratulate him and take his advice. In contrast, every time the black guy stands up no one listens to him. They don't take his advice and he is generally ignored. In terms of our social relationships, what does that achieve? It achieves the bolstering and confidence of the white man in the suit and the marginalisation and frustration of the black guy in the hooded top.

So in a situation in which black people are talking about how they resolve their issues, if that white man in the suit came along and got involved in that conversation, how do you think that affects the social relationships I mention above? Does it weaken the social privilege of the white man in the suit and embolden the confidence and leadership of the black man in the hooded top? Or does it simply reinforce the narrative that the white man in the suit should be listened to because he is speaking? How can the black man in the hooded top resolve the fact no one listens to him if the white man in the suit is speaking? Not only does the white man in the suit have the audience of the white people, he is now seeking the audience of the black people too and the black man in the hooded top is in exactly the same situation...

The white man and the black man don't have equal positions in society and therefore it is necessary for black people, just like queer people and women, to create their own leadership and their own spaces in which those social positions that dis-privilege them do not exist, otherwise how are we to challenge these specific assumptions that people have? And this is a real situation. I have been in political organising meetings where a woman gives an idea for something and it's essentially ignored and then a man says pretty much the same thing and suddenly it's a good idea. That's a real life example that I have witnessed. And this happens all the fucking time. How are women supposed to develop common ground with men that don't even listen to her? Why should she listen to those men give their opinion on her struggles when they don't even listen to her to begin with?...And these are men who call themselves feminists.


Why? The implication is that there should be separate movements against racism based on one's race. A Latin American movement against racism, an Asian movement against racism, etc. What would this accomplish?

There is one unifying principle though: Class struggle. Providing those movements are united together in their pursuit for the destruction of capitalism, then why shouldn't there be separate movements focusing on issues that directly relate to them as working class people within class society?


You seem to be proposing it should involve all (non-white?) people, but separately.

What I'm proposing is that queer people lead the movement for queer struggle, women lead the movement for women's struggle, black people lead the movement for black struggle, but that all of these movements include everyone, united in the common objective of ending capitalism, heteronormativity, white supremacy and patriarchy.

[Invader Zim]

You didn't, but to assimilate into heteronormativity, which is what you were suggesting, necessarily means not building a queer movement.

Surely, this whole discussion is on the wrong tack, because is it impossible to assimilate into heteronormativity. It is an ethos built on a false, deterministic and ascientific premise.

[The Feral Underclass]

Surely, this whole discussion is on the wrong tack, because is it impossible to assimilate into heteronormativity. It is an ethos built on a false, deterministic and ascientific premise.

I don't follow your meaning.

[Invader Zim]

I don't follow your meaning.

Heteronormativity assumes that everybody is straight. This is a false premise. It is not possible for an individual to assimilate into a structure which denies their existence of difference when the person who happens to be attempting to assimilate is different. Or, at the very least, the structure demands that this person masks those difference (i.e. Don't ask, don't tell). That, by definition, is not assimilation - which is about adaption. How, for example, could you adapt to not being gay? So, surely this can never be about queer people assimilating into heteronormativity. If they did, then they could no longer be queer. It's the politics of denial.

[The Feral Underclass]

Heteronormativity assumes that everybody is straight. This is a false premise. It is not possible for an individual to assimilate into a structure which denies their existence of difference when the person who happens to be attempting to assimilate is different. Or, at the very least, the structure demands that this person masks those difference (i.e. Don't ask, don't tell). That, by definition, is not assimilation.

That might have been true seventy years ago. I think this is why there was eventually open conflict. Heteronormative society denied the existence of divergent identities and for many years those identities existed covertly. Then queer people actively started to make it very clear that they did in fact exist, which led to open hostility and conflict, and the rise of radical struggles in the early half of the twentieth century.

In contemporary history, the problem is that heteronormative society not only recognises these differences, it openly embraces them, not least of all as a new market to be tapped, and in turn has begun establishing "rights" by which gay people can live (and spend) in heteronormative society. The latest right being marriage.

When I talk about assimilation, I'm not talking about gay people becoming heterosexual, I'm talking about gay people conforming to heterosexual cultures, standards and "markets." When Rugged uses the word "assimilate," I think they are using it to mean for queer people to protect themselves by pretending to be straight (although they can clarify that).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What is it when a homosexual couple imitates heterosexual couples by entering into a marriage agreement? This is the state assimilating them by legally condoning only one form of homosexuality, but only if it conforms to the bourgeois conception of a relationship. What do we make of the straight obsession of figuring out "which is the man in the relationship and which is the woman"?

[The Feral Underclass]

What is it when a homosexual couple imitates heterosexual couples by entering into a marriage agreement? This is the state assimilating them by legally condoning only one form of homosexuality, but only if it conforms to the bourgeois conception of a relationship. What do we make of the straight obsession of figuring out "which is the man in the relationship and which is the woman"?

"Are you the butch or the B*itch" is a common question I get asked by straight people (usually men)...

I'm a butch b*itch mother fuckers!

[Invader Zim]

That might have been true seventy years ago. I think this is why there was eventually open conflict. Heteronormative society denied the existence of divergent identities and for many years those identities were existed covertly. Then queer people actively started to make it very clear that they did in fact exist, which led to open hostility and conflict, and the rise of radical struggles in the early half of the twentieth century.

In contemporary history, the problem is that heteronormative society not only recognises these differences, it openly embraces them, not least of all as a new market to be tapped, and in turn has begun establishing "rights" by which gay people can live (and spend) in heteronormative society. The latest right being marriage.

When I talk about assimilation, I'm not talking about gay people becoming heterosexual, I'm talking about gay people conforming to heterosexual cultures, standards and "markets." When Rugged uses the word "assimilate," I think they are using it to mean for queer people to protect themselves by pretending to be straight (although they can clarify that).

I'm not sure I agree with your, actually I think rather optimistic, assessment that the belief that homosexuality doesn't 'really' exist has evaporated. It seems to me the underlying tenet of the argument that homosexuality is a 'choice' - a 'choice' being made by people who suppress their natural state of being - is absolutely widespread. I recall reading a poll, in some horror, just a few months ago which suggested that at least 50% of people in the US hold that view.

I absolutely agree with you on the point you made about marriage and that even those who accept that sexuality is not a choice are, nevertheless, attempting to dictate, commodify and recast, sexual behaviors and relationships. But again, that hardly seems like 'assimilation' to me, rather again a form of denial and forcing people to mask who they really are.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not sure I agree with your, actually I think rather optimistic, assessment that the belief that homosexuality doesn't 'really' exist has evaporated. It seems to me the underlying tenet of the argument that homosexuality is a 'choice' - a 'choice' being made by people who suppress their natural state of being - is absolutely widespread. I recall reading a poll, in some horror, just a few months ago which suggested that at least 50% of people in the US hold that view.

Actually I'm not convinced that heterornormative society believing homosexuality is a choice necessarily means that it cannot absorb those identities into its structures. Clearly something exists, whether it's a choice or not. Unlike seventy years ago, those "things that exist" are being brought into heteronormative society to be regulated and commodified etcetera.

[Lily Briscoe]

What is it when a homosexual couple imitates heterosexual couples by entering into a marriage agreement?Not to make this unnecessarily personal, but aren't you engaged to be married to someone of the opposite sex? Of course, it's a heterosexual relationship so you're not 'imitating' anyone; you're the real deal. And you can get married without having people call into question your politics or values or accusing you of 'assimilating' or 'immitating', but of course you can continue characterizing people in same-sex relationships as doing this.

I remember a thread on here maybe 6 months to a year ago, in which TFU basically proceeded to characterize 'queers' who got married to people of the same sex as traitors whose personal decision meant they weren't 'real queers'. It's funny how this dovetails with the homophobic opposition to gay marriage on the basis that true marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman.


This is the state assimilating them by legally condoning only one form of homosexuality, but only if it conforms to the bourgeois conception of a relationship. You could make this same complaint about 'assimilation' in every instance where the state extends equal rights/protections to a persecuted minority. I don't think stuff like this is a 'communist struggle', but I think there's something seriously backwards about people who think the extension of such rights and protections needs to actually be opposed, and who moralize about minorities wanting to be treated like everyone else,

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Also, in response to 870 earlier... Maybe you're just living on a different planet, but the shitty gender politics of the heavily male-dominated left are pretty well documented. Additionally, it's possible (and anecdotally, not uncommon) for men/straight/cis people to be well-versed in theory yet utterly incapable of applying that to their personal conduct and political organising.

Well, on my planet, most groups that purport to be "leftist" or "socialist" have awful "gender politics", in fact they have awful politics, full stop. Most of them are about as "socialist" as I am Martian. My point was that this is the case, regardless of the percentage of women in the group, or in its central institutions etc.

Of the perhaps five or six extremely homophobic and misogynist Leninist groups I could name, one was founded by a woman (a woman who broke from a mostly male group, no less), another is led by a woman, yet another's number two is a woman, and the fourth included numerous prominent women, and in fact, when it fractured, women led about half of the splinters.

I am not as familiar with anarchist groups, in fact I get a headache trying to follow all of the regroupments and splits of anarchist groups (and coming from a Trotskyist, that says something), but as I recall it a lot of the lesbian separatist groups in the seventies had awful politics, and I'm not talking about things like not hailing the Red Army in Afghanistan, I'm talking about rank transphobia, sometimes overt racism etc. On the other hand, Love and Rage were mostly men, but I don't think you could fairly characterise them as homophobic, misogynist etc.

[cyu]

Q: "Are you the butch or the B*itch?"

A: "I haven't decided yet. Are you the fool or the has-been?"

[The Feral Underclass]

I remember a thread on here maybe 6 months to a year ago, in which TFU basically proceeded to characterize 'queers' who got married to people of the same sex as traitors whose personal decision meant they weren't 'real queers'.


Erm, no. I'm sorry, but that's just fantastical. That's not my view and I have never expressed it. That may very well be your paranoid interpretation of my views but it is certainly not, not has it ever been, something that I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lily Briscoe]

Erm, no. I'm sorry, but that's just fantastical. That's not my view and I have never expressed it. That may very well be your paranoid interpretation of my views but it is certainly not, not has it ever been, something that I think.
This is the thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/assimilation-completed-t187781/index.html?highlight=Marriage

You're the one who created it actually, and this was your OP:

Gay marriage has arrived!

We need to create a word that describes a gay person who desperately wants to live like and be obedient to heterosexuals. What would it be?...which is followed by a long discussion where many people - lots of whom I believe are straight - deliberate about what the best term is for people in same-sex relationships who wish to get married: 'heterophile', 'traitor', 'ex-queer', 'Uncle Tom' perhaps? It's pretty disgusting.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is the thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/assimilation-completed-t187781/index.html?highlight=Marriage

You're the one who created it actually, and this was your OP:
...which is followed by a long discussion where many people - lots of whom I believe are straight - deliberate about what the best term is for people in same-sex relationships who wish to get married: 'heterophile', 'traitor', 'ex-queer', 'Uncle Tom' perhaps? It's pretty disgusting.

Again no. Show me the quote where I say or endorse someone else saying that queer people who get married are traitors or are not queer. Where is it? Erm no where, so stop fucking lying.

Stop dragging me into your stupidity. I am not responsible for your ridiculous interpretations of my meaning.

[The Feral Underclass]

You know what's interesting, instead of addressing the substantial posts I have made to you, you have opted to falsely and pettily accuse me of saying nonsense things. If you have nothing of substance to contribute to this debate, then why bother contributing at all?

It seems to me that your objective here is simply to troll and provoke, which is hilarious considering you accuse me of doing this.

[Lily Briscoe]

Again no. Show me the quote where I say or endorse someone else saying that queer people who get married are traitors or are not queer.

I'm sorry, it was other people who used the terms 'traitor' and 'ex queer' in agreement with the thrust of your OP. You liked 'heterophile'. The attitude is exactly the same, and people can read the thread and see for themselves.

Also, I think my contributions have had substance. You not liking them doesn't make them unsubstantial. I haven't had the uninterrupted block of time necessary to respond to your enormous earlier post yet, but am still planning to.

BTW, I see you have fallen off the 'nice' wagon. That didn't last long.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm sorry, it was other people who used the terms 'traitor' and 'ex queer' in agreement with the thrust of your OP. You liked 'heterophile'. The attitude is exactly the same, and people can read the thread and see for themselves.

I categorically and emphatically do not believe that queer people who get married are "traitors" or "not queer" and I think my meaning is abundantly clear in that thread, where I don't even refer to queer people! The fact remains that there are gay people who want to conform and be obedient to heterosexual standards and I stand by that view. If you want to actually address the substance of that claim then do so, stop relying on these petty attempts to twist and distort my views, a tactic clearly motivated by a desire to provoke and discredit what I'm saying.

I thought better of you, but you have very expertly exposed yourself.


I think my contributions have had substance. You not liking them doesn't make them unsubstantial. I haven't had the uninterrupted block of time necessary to respond to your enormous earlier post yet, but am still planning to.

Throwing around false accusations about people you're not even engaging in conversation is not substance, it's petty and vindictive.


BTW, I see you have fallen off the 'nice' wagon. That didn't last long.

Which was clearly your intention by needlessly attacking me with false accusations. Why would I maintain any standard of niceness to someone whose motive towards me is nothing but spite? You're not interested in honest debate, you're interested in being as much as a prick to me as you can be.

[Lily Briscoe]

If you say so, broski

[The Feral Underclass]

If you say so, broski


So I take it this means you don't want to address the substance of my claim...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rugged Collectivist]

When I talk about assimilation, I'm not talking about gay people becoming heterosexual, I'm talking about gay people conforming to heterosexual cultures, standards and "markets." When Rugged uses the word "assimilate," I think they are using it to mean for queer people to protect themselves by pretending to be straight (although they can clarify that).

That could be true as well, but I meant the same thing you did, gay people conforming to heterosexual standards. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing though. I think it's the best they can hope for when there are substantial material incentives to conform to the nuclear family model. I also don't think this goal (gay marriage) precludes the destruction of heteronormative society.

Then again, I am straight (or at least perceived to be and treated as such) so I suppose you may disregard my opinion.

I would respond to your longer post, and Quail's, but I don't think I have anything else to say on the matter. You both know my position, and I have a lot to think about.

[Lord Testicles]

It seems to me that your objective here is simply to troll and provoke, which is hilarious considering you accuse me of doing this.

No body needs to accuse you of this since you've posted flame-bait in this very thread. Drama Llamas will drama Llama.

[The Feral Underclass]

No body needs to accuse you of this since you've posted flame-bait in this very thread. Drama Llamas will drama Llama.


Thanks for that contribution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Not to make this unnecessarily personal, but aren't you engaged to be married to someone of the opposite sex? Of course, it's a heterosexual relationship so you're not 'imitating' anyone; you're the real deal. And you can get married without having people call into question your politics or values or accusing you of 'assimilating' or 'immitating', but of course you can continue characterizing people in same-sex relationships as doing this.

I remember a thread on here maybe 6 months to a year ago, in which TFU basically proceeded to characterize 'queers' who got married to people of the same sex as traitors whose personal decision meant they weren't 'real queers'. It's funny how this dovetails with the homophobic opposition to gay marriage on the basis that true marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman.

You could make this same complaint about 'assimilation' in every instance where the state extends equal rights/protections to a persecuted minority. I don't think stuff like this is a 'communist struggle', but I think there's something seriously backwards about people who think the extension of such rights and protections needs to actually be opposed, and who moralize about minorities wanting to be treated like everyone else,

Uhh well no, I actually do think this is unecessarily personal. I'm not sure what points you're looking to score by bringing it up, but it's something I've made no attempt to hide here or in real life, so obviously I've done some serious thinking about it strix. I don't view myself as some ubermensch over and above other people, I'm assimilated into this world just like anyone else. The fact that it was a woman who has made life feel worth living rather than a man is the kind of funny accident that makes life so incomprehensible isn't it? I don't identify as queer as I've already stated I don't identify at all, I've been defending the autonomy of those who do. Obviously I'm not in favor of a ban on gay marriage, I'm simply pointing out the logic at work with the concept. Actually it's really funny that you would try to pin that on me as I remember you yourself arguing against gay marriage in a thread a few weeks ago.

So again I'm not really sure what you're looking to gain with this post, but I don't appreciate it. I feel like I've made an effort to be balanced and respectful of everyone in this thread so far. Maybe you should take a break for a while.

[Lily Briscoe]

I didn't argue against gay marriage, I argued against people with communist politics mobilizing to support it (but equally that people shouldn't oppose it). My view on that hasn't changed at all.

I'm sorry that you think it's unnecessarily personal, but I think it's a relevant point, and it's pretty shitty for anyone to describe gay people who want to get married as 'imitators', let alone when it's coming from someone in a heterosexual relationship who is getting married. I don't really care that you 'don't appreciate it'.

[The Feral Underclass]

I didn't argue against gay marriage, I argued against people with communist politics mobilizing to support it (but equally that people shouldn't oppose it). My view on that hasn't changed at all.

I'm sorry that you think it's unnecessarily personal, but I think it's a relevant point, and it's pretty shitty for anyone to describe gay people who want to get married as 'imitators', let alone when it's coming from someone in a heterosexual relationship who is getting married. I don't really care that you 'don't appreciate it'.

Homosexual marriage is an imitation of heterosexual marriage in every possible sense bar one. There is literally nothing different about them except that it's two people of the same sex. You can even get religious weddings now for same-sex couples. There's nothing "shitty" about pointing that out. Gay people who seek to marry their monogamous partners are imitators of heterosexual couples, that is demonstrable true. The whole point of gay marriage rights was to be equal to straight people. It wasn't about gay people celebrating their own culture and having their own rituals and standards, it was specifically about being like straight people and copying what they do.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Strix I have another scandalous revelation for you; I exchange labor power for wages on a daily basis. Does that disqualify me from attacking capitalism and the wage system? This is a really silly line of thought. Marriage has obviously been historically tied to heterosexual coupledom here in the west. To get married is to replicate something else; a real couple or concept. Even straight cis people getting married is an imitation of something. If you or some hypothetical couple you're envisoning are seeking some existential validation from it, that's really your own problem. My criticism is always aimed at myself as much as anyone else.

[Lily Briscoe]

Strix I have another scandalous revelation for you; I exchange labor power for wages on a daily basis. Does that disqualify me from attacking capitalism and the wage system?

No, it disqualifies you from moralizing about other people doing the same thing, particularly people who have been historically excluded from employment. And that's what a lot of 'queer liberation' politics are, particularly the brand on display in this thread: glorified lifestyle politics, moralizing about people's personal choices.

I'm critical of marriage as an institution, and I certainly believe it wouldn't exist in a communist world, but I couldn't possibly care less if people choose to get married in the here and now. It isn't a political statement. That is the difference.

I don't think people here would think it was acceptable to describe any other minority taking advantage of rights previously denied to them as 'imitators' or 'assimilators' (black people sitting at the front of the bus, Eastern European Jews moving out of the ghetto...God, what imitators! They just wanna be like white people/goys!), so I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable in this instance.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Strix I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I've taken no moralist stance on marriage in any capacity. Acknowledging what it represents within bourgeois society in no way suggests what my personal feelings are about the choices made by individuals who get married. You are 100% projecting something on to me that I have not said. If I support queer liberation due to a personal principal of autonomy it would follow that the same principal would apply to gay couples who choose to get married. Or for that matter people who do magic tricks on the street or people who knit after work, whatever people do as autonomous human beings is absolutely irrelevant to my political critique of the world they live in (with me). You obviously feel that I've attacked you or something but I'm pretty sure it's a misunderstanding on your part.

Edit: Actually do you find it odd to be in here attacking the op and tfu for 'identity politics' while at the same time shrieking over a perceive slight on my part towards another kind of identity? What is it that you're actually upset about?

[Lily Briscoe]

Wow, 'shrieking'! That's a really interesting characterization of my posts...

My criticisms have been concerned with the stupid politics and writing style of the document in the OP and the political defense of 'culture and identity', not with people's personal lifestyle choices. And you seem to be avoiding the point about how fucked up it would be to criticize any other minority taking advantage of equal rights on the basis that they're 'imitating' the dominant group.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not avoiding any criticism and no I really find your baseless attacks to be an act of desperation of some sort, so the word fits. If I had some deep seated moral opposition to you and your old lady seeking state recognition I probably wouldn't have thanked your post where you told everyone. I'm tired of talking to you, go away now.