Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **WhyINeverWentBack** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:17 pm

James in the Rain molested me. Done and done. No rape. He definitely didn't get me alone. And my clothes didn't come off. I could sense gross all over him but my disinterest and attempts at trying to excuse myself didn't stop him from aggressively rubbing his erect penis on me. Ozarks Rainbow Gathering '96. I'll never forget that man's name. Disgusting. I was 18 y/o. A young 18. I didnt' even know how to deal with it. So I just waited for him to stop. Didn't do anything just stood there waiting for him to get off of me.

by **Infinite** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:48 pm

Yuda wrote:or just an asshole.

*ding ding ding*

by **skullcap** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:31 pm

Steppenwolf wrote:Its not lame: in fact, BB is probably conintell at work.

this is just stupid. agent baiting is usually done by agents, don't ya know?

Not really, no. I'm afraid I take anarchism to mean slightly more than a person, individualist ethic that I may or may not subscribe to on weekends. In fact, a central point of anarchism has, and always will be, ethics, social justice and over-all concern for a non-theistic morality. That you claim it isn't merely depresses me about the state of the scene, and the juvenile tendancies to believe in some kind of Alastair Crowley inspired "do what thy wilt"

i guess you have never read Stirner or the lineage from him, but i could have guessed that since you only seem to be able to claim others as juvenile or whatnot, not yet able to recognize your own shortcomings.

and Bob has written many things, not solely "The Abolition of Work". his work is funny and usually right on.

Actually, he hasn't.

actually, he has. "Rants", "Beneath the Underground", "Friendly Fire" and "Anarchy after Leftism" are just the books i have on my shelf now. this doesn't include the many articles and letters that have appeared.

by **Steppenwolf** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:54 pm

skullcap wrote:
Steppenwolf wrote:
But Bob Black is the Uncle Tom of anarchism.

what the hell does this mean?

It means that I have issues with someone so willing to sell his books and so forth, whilst pronouncing his own greatness... at the same time saying "Most anarchists are stupid" (direct quotation). Oh, and if you didn't already know, BB was taking cash from Rep. organisations.

Black subsequently acknowledged that he had informed on Hogshire to the police, a claim that led to his alienation from some anarchist circles. No, he didn't have to hand over some records to the FBI, under pain of losing access to your kids for 5-10, of some idiots who made some trolling "radical" links to terrorism, when any idiot can sub-mask their IP to the site anyhow. (history of flag)

He had a shit friend, who trashed his place, was whacked on drugs, he got scared, called the police. No wait.. he wet himself, used his friend's wife as a living shield then fled, then called the cops three weeks later to rat out said friend. LULZ. Oh, and his one piece of original thought was more of a pamphlet. "Beyond work" or "Why you should sponser me by paying me to speak at dinners". Although he had a great big picture of himself on his website (that SOLD his books).

Yes. He's really that much of a joke.

steppenwolf,
you were good there for a while, trying to school the gonz, but your lame attack on B. Black is just as old as gonz's sexism.

Its not lame: in fact, BB is probably conintell at work.

if you are an anarchist you should at least be aware of the tendancy in anarchism not to be moralistic. yes BB ratted out a drug dealer, many of us would not do the same, yet many of us were not in his shoes either. if you are so pure in your anarchism to cast stones, well some may worship you as a saint. i, however, am not so pure. i have done things that by the anarchist morality code a lot of folks would not find kosher, but i am not a public figure so no one knows. and so what? we each have to make our own choices, that is anarchy, no?

[red=color]Not really, no. I'm afraid I take anarchism to mean slightly more than a person, individualist ethic that I may or may not subscribe to on weekends. In fact, a central point of anarchism has, and always will be, ethics, social justice and over-all concern for a non-theistic morality. That you claim it isn't merely depresses me about the state of the scene, and the juvenile tendancies to believe in some kind of Alastair Crowley inspired "do what thy wilt"[/color]

and Bob has written many things, not solely "The Abolition of Work". his work is funny and usually right on.

Actually, he hasn't. His amount of work over 10 years is extrememly frugal, and lacking. I've read it all: it took me a day. His one book was extremely limited, and his journo-pieces are usually 75% about his personal issues and then perhaps 20% critique then 5% of anything of any worth

i'm not saying you have to like anyone's personal life, but to condemn someone for something that happened a long time ago, well, to me that is just silly.

The problem is... and please, this is what I find so amazingly amusing: BB himself stated he was not an anarchist, would have no ties with anarchism and so forth in 1985. BB is an uncle Tom since he made a huge issue of his "personal danger" (direct quotation) in being involved in the anarchist scene, but did little apart from: a) make a big splash website selling his work b) inform on friends (who, yes, were probably as big a fuckwit as him) premediatively to the police c) threatened to sue people for libel d) maintained a constant negative discourse with everyone barring those who bought his books and e) took money from the Gov. to do so.

So yes. He's an Uncle Tom.

I find it extremely amusing that some trolls dig him up to hold up like a Guy Fawlks when most of us in the active scene don't care who he is, barely remember his actions, and think he was a total fuckwit.

Oh. And without proof, it seems the land of the sock-puppets has begun. Gonzo really is boring in his inability to go anywhere with his trolling other than "largest poster on a site not many involved in the scene bother with now because people like him rule" *ZZzzzz*

by **Gonzo Joker** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:11 am

skullcap wrote:
Steppenwolf wrote:
But Bob Black is the Uncle Tom of anarchism.

what the hell does this mean?

It means that Steppy really doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "Uncle Tom". The term "Uncle Tom" is used by American blacks to refer to a black person who sells out his own race in order to secure a comfortable position working for the white man.

In order for Bob Black to be the Uncle Tom of Anarchism (a patently ridiculous statement) he would have to go to work for the system, something he will presumably never do.

As you will see from Steppenwolf, he is utterly unable to articulate an argument, and instead relies solely on labels and inapprpriate insults to vent his anger and frustration.

by **skullcap** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:36 pm

Steppenwolf wrote:
But Bob Black is the Uncle Tom of anarchism.

what the hell does this mean?

Black subsequently acknowledged that he had informed on Hogshire to the police, a claim that led to his alienation from some anarchist circles. No, he didn't have to hand over some records to the FBI, under pain of losing access to your kids for 5-10, of some idiots who made some trolling "radical" links to terrorism, when any idiot can sub-mask their IP to the site anyhow. (history of flag)

He had a shit friend, who trashed his place, was whacked on drugs, he got scared, called the police. No wait.. he wet himself, used his friend's wife as a living shield then fled, then called the cops three weeks later to rat out said friend. LULZ. Oh, and his one piece of original thought was more of a pamphlet. "Beyond work" or "Why you should sponser me by paying me to speak at dinners". Although he had a great big picture of himself on his website (that SOLD his books).

Yes. He's really that much of a joke.

steppenwolf,
you were good there for a while, trying to school the gonz, but your lame attack on B. Black is just as old as gonz's sexism.

if you are an anarchist you should at least be aware of the tendancy in anarchism not to be moralistic. yes BB ratted out a drug dealer, many of us would not do the same, yet many of us were not in his shoes either. if you are so pure in your anarchism to cast stones, well some may worship you as a saint. i, however, am not so pure. i have done things that by the anarchist morality code a lot of folks would not find kosher, but i am not a public figure so no one knows. and so what? we each have to make our own choices, that is anarchy, no?

and Bob has written many things, not solely "The Abolition of Work". his work is funny and usually right on.

i'm not saying you have to like anyone's personal life, but to condemn someone for something that happened a long time ago, well, to me that is just silly.

by **Steppenwolf** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:03 pm

Hate to rain on your "parade".

But Bob Black is the Uncle Tom of anarchism.

BEYOND FUNNY.

Black subsequently acknowledged that he had informed on Hogshire to the police, a claim that led to his alienation from some anarchist circles. No, he didn't have to hand over some records to the FBI, under pain of losing access to your kids for 5-10, of some idiots who made some trolling "radical" links to terrorism, when any idiot can sub-mask their IP to the site anyhow. (history of flag)

He had a shit friend, who trashed his place, was whacked on drugs, he got scared, called the police. No wait.. he wet himself, used his friend's wife as a living shield then fled, then called the cops three weeks later to rat out said friend. LULZ. Oh, and his one piece of original thought was more of a pamphlet. "Beyond work" or "Why you should sponser me by paying me to speak at dinners". Although he had a great big picture of himself on his website (that SOLD his books).

Yes. He's really that much of a joke. Seriously, if you keep this level of parrying up, I might have to one-day give you a link to like... omg.. something dangerous like...

Drum-roll

http://www.anarchist-cookbook.com/

Lulz. You're either a shit troll, took too much acid or 13. I can't decide if its all three yet.

Wait. Given your abilities at posting, I think you might actually be B.B.

by **Gonzo Joker** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:07 pm

Steppenwolf wrote:http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Troll

Well, Definition 2 of your own link describes you perfectly:

<i>Troll: 2. A person that throws around the troll insult to: anyone who defeats them in an argument, anyone points out facts the real troll doesn't want people to know, or someone the real troll picks at random to stick falsely with a troll label for sheer lulz. This second type of troll is 99.999% of all trolls now and is often called an Anti-troll.</i>

In all seriousness, steppy, people like you are the biggest obstacle the concept of Anarchy faces, if it is ever to be anything more than the subject of coffee shop debates amongst pseudointellectuals.

Authoritiarian-Anarchists (a term which fits you perfectly) who believe that anarchists must conform to your own pseudotheories of how humans should behave have no business talking down to those who truly desire freedom from authoritarian assholes. In fact, rule by greedy bastards who care little about those under them is preferable to rule by pretentious know-it-alls who think they have all the answers, but in reality know nothing.

Here is a good starting point for you to begin your deprogramming, and perhaps to start your real education:

http://akpress.com/1997/items/anarchyafterleftism

by **Steppenwolf** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:09 pm

I'm starting a thread in the 101 section of the forum, loosely based on the issues raised by the article. Gonzo, its the only place I'll engage you, but feel free to come along and read for a while.

by **Steppenwolf** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:52 pm

1) Ad hominen is old. Anyone who seriously thinks that this makes them sound intellectual, wins arguements or serves any purpose other than to skip debate is naive at best. Its also a troll's best friend. And yes, I know all about the troll underbridge, the culture, the alt. link contests and so on. You're also using a technique called "borrowed vocabulary" with this faux-intellectual statement: "debunk your erroneous assumptions and assertions". Not even first year philosophy undergrads could make that statement in any seriousness. You also notably only addressed the first part, which means you're a lazy troll. 2/10 for effort.

2) By "women's mags" you mean "fashion magazines". You don't mean "Pregnancy monthly" or "Women in Business". The very idea that you've somehow missed the fact that the fashion industry is run by men, is largely divorced from reality and so forth I don't buy. At all. By "men's magazines" you mean "soft-core porn crap like FHM, Loaded and so on". Strangely enough, I don't see "curvy women" on the front of "Men's Health" or "Fly-fishing monthly". (You do see it on Motorsports magazines, of course, as that's essentially pornography as well). So in a rather transparent move, you've tried to conflate "women's magazines" with "fashion industry" and "men's magazines" with "soft-porn entertainment". So basically, your "Anarchist" appraisal of the gender situation is based on Capitalist magazines, and tries to ignore the difference between base sexual titillation ("curves") and gender construction and "sophisticated" sexualised ideals ("size 0"). Capitalist WESTERN magazines at that, given that if you didn't realise, large corporate entities such as Maxim, Elle etc have different covers in each separate country they run in, to maximise appeal to the cultural normative view of "attractive". i.e. Its largely a US thing that equates large breasts with sexual appeal, in other cultures its other secondary sexual features (e.g. Brazil, large bottoms). Excuse me while I don't give a fuck about your opinion, and your content work on trolling isn't subtle. Next time at least try and subvert some statements by anarchists steeped in 19C culture (its not.that.hard). Oh wait, you did with your "clever precise" of Goldman. Sigh. 3/10.

3) Using Andrea Dworkin as representative of all feminists. Straw-woman, blatantly obvious and more than likely that she's probably the "worst" ultra-radical feminist you know about. She isn't, but then again she tried very hard. 5/10 as you googled a suitable quotation of hers, and at least have heard of one "ultra-radical" feminist.

Basically, you are a troll, and I give your efforts 4/10. Please stare at your screen and realise that you're quite transparent, go post to your "ultra-cool" board that the session is over, and the "tee-hees" are as well. Now schoo, this was a public service announcement just so others will stop feeding you. Your other option is to continue to claim innocence, or start using some sock-puppets at which point I'll ignore you anyway. Ciao kid. I'll give you 6/10 if Kropotkitten is your sock-puppet ~ but please learn that intellectual masturbation that is the raison d'etre of trolling seems really embarressingly juvenile when you realise the world is larger than you. It really does - get out and enjoy, hopefully you'll realise that the trolling phase just isn't that cool with a bit of experience.

If you are somehow serious, in that you've just come of age where the age lock has been removed from your computer, or your intellect has blossomed to the point where you are trying to form opinions, then your arguement boils down to: I live in a Capitalist system; my viewpoint is the same as that system's propoganda; most of my female friends buy into it as well. This raises some questions that probably are interesting (such as: fragmentation, back-lash and radicalisation of US feminism ~ what can be done, what are the problems, fresh appraisals and so forth). However, your arguement basically means you're not an Anarchist, so get into the 101 already and stop posting where your ignorance is embarressing. The article is about a female perspective on the anarchist scene, and problems therein. You're not an anarchist, so ergo shouldn't be posting here. So don't.

And your sig isn't clever, or ironic, its just sad: trolling is crushing dreams, deary. And no, you don't get fed ever again.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Troll

http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?TrollingTactic

I've broken the rules, just because people really are feeding you in all seriousness, which is kind of sad, and denotes an unhealthy forum. And yes, I'm feeling all Bookchin at this point - shame on Flag, what happened?

by **Gonzo Joker** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:08 am

Steppenwolf wrote:The fact remains, most women either enjoy having their bodies admired and lusted after, or are jealous of the women who are having their bodies admired and lusted after.

LOL. Ad hominems like this always amuse me. Anti-sexuality activists who pretend to be anarchists really hate it when other anarchists point out the obvious - most people enjoy sex and spend considerable time and effort increasing the amount of sexual attention they get.

That's right, young man, women require men to validate their sexuality. And they dress provocatively to entice your approval, which you then should signal to them thus improving their own self-image, as its largely predicated on male concepts of what is "attractive" and what isn't and thus "causes them to be jealous" if they're lacking in this field and thus not getting your attention. *sigh* You might want to discover Rubins paintings one day, and mull over that "attractive" is a highly fluid and culturally based set of criteria, one that is usually set by one gender (male) rather than the other (female). Look into "size 0" models, muppet.

I will ignore the ad hominem attack, and instead debunk your erroneous assumptions and assertions.

The "size 0" models are in women's mags, not men's mags. The women you find on the cover of mens mags are usually voluptuous, as most men (me included) like women with lots of sexy curves. I am not attracted to anorexic stick figure women, and frankly don't know many men who are....

I do notice that the 18 to 25 year old women I personally know, virtually without exception, all try to play up their feminine sexuality as much as possible, and seem to really get off on sexual attention from men. I see nothing wrong with this - I let them have their fun, and I have mine. I also work out and do what I can to be physically attractive to women, btw (No, I am totally not into fashion or any metro crap, hun, so calm down your imagination lol).

Btw, it are your feminist heroes that have turned me off to the whole movement. As Andrea Dworkin said, "Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free."

I don't buy it, and from what I have seen and heard from most of the women I know, the vast majority of women don't either.

by **Steppenwolf** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:47 pm

The fact remains, most women either enjoy having their bodies admired and lusted after, or are jealous of the women who are having their bodies admired and lusted after.

LOL. Ad hominems like this always amuse me. Anti-sexuality activists who pretend to be anarchists really hate it when other anarchists point out the obvious - most people enjoy sex and spend considerable time and effort increasing the amount of sexual attention they get.

That's right, young man, women require men to validate their sexuality. And they dress provocatively to entice your approval, which you then should signal to them thus improving their own self-image, as its largely predicated on male concepts of what is "attractive" and what isn't and thus "causes them to be jealous" if they're lacking in this field and thus not getting your attention. *sigh* :roll:

You might want to discover Rubins paintings one day, and mull over that "attractive" is a highly fluid and culturally based set of criteria, one that is usually set by one gender (male) rather than the other (female). Look into "size 0" models, muppet.

However, I'll make this really simple for you:

I'm pro sex. I enjoy it. I enjoy it when my partner(s) enjoy it. I do it quite a lot, as its cheaper & more healthy than drugs. I don't have hang-ups about it. Number #1 turn on - an active mind, not your cosmetic-enhanced fashion get-up. However, confusing people who call you on your bizarrely immature concepts of desire, and human sexuality with "anti-sexuality" activists is just insulting. Try doing a bit of research into the cosmetics industry (negative image re-enforcement, maintaining artificial constructs via media manipulation (air brushing / digital enhancement) and so on), the actual arguments of feminists on the issues, regarding power / dominance and so forth, and the power imbalances, and capitalist desire-machine, that places desire onto commodities, not people, enforcing people to use said commodities to enable desire and so forth. At the moment you read like either a) someone whose understanding of gender is severly lacking, who clearly hasn't been near any decent anarchist thought other than "black As are like cool and the chicks are loose!!" or b) a troll, looking for some self-validation / attention. I'd bother arguing. However, the level of conversation isn't really there, and I've better things to do than argue the toss with some confused immature male, who needs the attention. This is me being nice: if you're not a troll, and actually a) then you've my pity. Not part of the solution, part of the problem and all that.

You aside, the original article had faults, but raised my concern levels. @IyI My longer comments (made on the fly) are probably underneath it in the comment field, on the infoshop site.

by **jacobhaller** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:19 am

|Y| wrote:Actually, I'd debate that, but perhaps this isn't the thread for it. I just think females are oppressed so much sexually that they don't enjoy it as much as men (though this could be an inadequacy on the mans part). But like I said, another discussion entirely.

It just reminded me of this quote I once read which went, "If women enjoyed sex as much as men, the world would collapse into chaos as humanity embarked on an unending sexual orgy."

I doubt many people, men or women or intersexual, would want more than 4hrs of sex on the average day. I doubt most people would want more than 2hrs. It does seem strange that there can be a shortage of sex...

by **Gonzo Joker** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:56 pm

I guess it depends on who you talk to. I know plenty of women that are very sexual, and very much into enjoying sex. Sadly, none of them seem to be into anarchy, or at least discussing anarchy on Internet forums...

by **|Y|** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:07 pm

Actually, I'd debate that, but perhaps this isn't the thread for it. I just think females are oppressed so much sexually that they don't enjoy it as much as men (though this could be an inadequacy on the mans part). But like I said, another discussion entirely.

It just reminded me of this quote I once read which went, "If women enjoyed sex as much as men, the world would collapse into chaos as humanity embarked on an unending sexual orgy."

Anarchist Discussion Forums

Activist Scenes are No Safe Space for Women

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Activist Scenes are No Safe Space for Women

Re: Activist Scenes are No Safe Space for Women

Re:

Re: Bob is really a nice guy.

Re: Bob is really a nice guy.

Re: Bob is really a nice guy.

Bob is really a nice guy.