No Cause, No Ally

[P3nT4gR4m]

I can get behind this sentiment. I can't say I know everything or have the broadest experience in more than a few unrelated areas. Certainly I'm no veteran of the Civil Rights or Women's Rights or LGBTETC Rights movements. In my own way, though, I'm a veteran of the "JUST RIGHTS" movement. I do not care who or what you are, where you come from, your preferred method for tickling your pubic nerves, what you feel like when you wear a dress, what your favorite color is, what kind of music you like (with the exception of Country, which is only enjoyed by people who deserve all the persecution we can throw at them), or anything else that goes into making you a special snowflake.

I'm an egalitarian, and a realist. I know there is injustice and inequality. That there are stereotypes and mountains of unfairness that needs to be worked out. My way of doing this is by not giving one single fuck what you or someone else might use to identify you or categorize you. I believe that if more people were to adopt this attitude, our society would benefit enormously.

Yep.  It was both threads, mind you, and it went on for some time (especially in the Patriarchy thread).  I finally gave up, and decided that the best thing I can do is just do what I've been doing all along.  The Cause will get by without me.

Been saying that, about any cause anyone has ever had, since I first became aware of the fucking things. I will mock any cause I'm presented with and the cause will get all pissy with me and do absolutely nothing aside from make angry little faces which, let's face it, is about as much as any cause can ever do about anything and, yeah, they seem to manage it quite well with or without my support.

Yes, well, I've bought into that sentiment...But for a slightly different reason.  I have enough power structures to deal with, and ANY organization or cause is a power structure.  And the consequences for being in a power structure is a continual power struggle, and again, I have enough on my plate.

They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.

Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.

Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all.  This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell).  I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.

Obvious conclusion:  "Alliances" are heirarchies.  The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.

So I'll pass on this stuff.  I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.

I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.

I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".

It's not the "working for us" thing, and it's not the nastiness.  It's the idea that once you take one step, you have to jump all the way into lockstep or you're scum.

And I'm not willing to do that.

Like I said, I'm still gonna do what I've always done, but I'm not going to get involved in any movements, causes, or any other damn thing.  The price tag is a little too rich for my blood.

And what you're doing is excellent. Can you give me an example of "lockstep", please?

I think I did.  Last few pages of Labels, and ALL of the patriarchy thread.  The Patriarchy thread was originally about how the partriarchy affects men, and it also turned into a reeducation camp.

Specific example:  No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be¹.  On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.

Enough is enough, you know?




¹  For example, a senatorial candidate that flatly states that women can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And can you explain to me, please, what the kind of label usage is that isn't for description? I don't entirely get that.

Yeah, we discussed this in the Label thread.  Go look there.  I am not interested in discussing it any further.

Umm okay, just you brought it up again here. I did read that thread patiently and don't think I missed anything. Unless you mean labels as uniforms, a concept which I understand and find useful. I just don't entirely get the holy rage against labels as a whole with the exception of description, when description sounds to me like almost all uses of labels ever.

In any case, if you don't want to continue discussing this, I'll just remain slightly confused, which I'm fine with.

Worse things have happened at sea.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.

That's because - while the ethics wildly differ - it's the same old power structure.

[Juana]

Could you explain to me, please, where the "169% on board" and contempt thing came from? Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not sure where either of these things came from.

Last 3-4 pages in Labels, in which I am apparently somewhat less than a person, for failing to agree on all points.

Interestingly enough, ECH vented some stuff a page or two back in the Patriarchy thread, in which he stated that he isn't willing to bend at all.  This was given a pass (granted, it was funny as hell).  I was willing to bend, and I have been made into something that you'd scrape off your shoe if you stepped in it.

Obvious conclusion:  "Alliances" are heirarchies.  The moment you enter one, you become part of the pecking order, and you will face non-stop attempts to make you a good little serf.

So I'll pass on this stuff.  I'll do my thing, you folks do yours.

I haven't gotten to any of those pages yet. I'll check them out.

I think the word choice of "allies" was meant to imply that a person who is working with a group (let's go back to women) is working hand in hand with them, but I can see what you're getting at. It might start out as "working with us' but it can become "working for us".

It's not the "working for us" thing, and it's not the nastiness.  It's the idea that once you take one step, you have to jump all the way into lockstep or you're scum.

And I'm not willing to do that.

Like I said, I'm still gonna do what I've always done, but I'm not going to get involved in any movements, causes, or any other damn thing.  The price tag is a little too rich for my blood.

And what you're doing is excellent. Can you give me an example of "lockstep", please?

I think I did.  Last few pages of Labels, and ALL of the patriarchy thread.  The Patriarchy thread was originally about how the partriarchy affects men, and it also turned into a reeducation camp.

Specific example:  No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be¹.  On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.

Enough is enough, you know?




¹  For example, a senatorial candidate that flatly states that women can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape".

Ah. Sorry. Still haven't gotten there, lol.

I think we got caught up in the "empathy v. experience" debate more than was possibly necessary (sometimes I find it necessary to let something die to save the rest of the conversation).
*shrug*

I have a couple questions about egalitarianism, specifically certain elements of how you intend to practice it, but that might end up threadjacking hardcore. Perhaps a new thread?

[P3nT4gR4m]

They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.

That's because - while the ethics wildly differ - it's the same old power structure.

The ethics don't differ either or at least they do up to a point. To become effective a movement must dispense with ethics, meet the enemy on a level playing field, fight dirty. Blow up some supermarkets. Until that point it's not really a movement, it's just a bunch of weak minded fools, wishing their lives away. After that point it's just a bunch of weak minded fools fucking up a little bit of the world with their pathetic rage.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ah. Sorry. Still haven't gotten there, lol.

I think we got caught up in the "empathy v. experience" debate more than was possibly necessary (sometimes I find it necessary to let something die to save the rest of the conversation).
*shrug*

I have a couple questions about egalitarianism, specifically certain elements of how you intend to practice it, but that might end up threadjacking hardcore. Perhaps a new thread?

Perhaps.  Give it a shot.  The moment it turns into mk IV of the same conversation, though, I'm bailing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

They also have a hilarious habit of, more often than not, turning into a mirror image of whatever dire fucking injustice they assembled to bring down.

That's because - while the ethics wildly differ - it's the same old power structure.

The ethics don't differ either or at least they do up to a point. To become effective a movement must dispense with ethics, meet the enemy on a level playing field, fight dirty. Blow up some supermarkets. Until that point it's not really a movement, it's just a bunch of weak minded fools, wishing their lives away. After that point it's just a bunch of weak minded fools fucking up a little bit of the world with their pathetic rage.

I gotta disagree, on account of MLK and Gandhi.

[Juana]

Ah. Sorry. Still haven't gotten there, lol.

I think we got caught up in the "empathy v. experience" debate more than was possibly necessary (sometimes I find it necessary to let something die to save the rest of the conversation).
*shrug*

I have a couple questions about egalitarianism, specifically certain elements of how you intend to practice it, but that might end up threadjacking hardcore. Perhaps a new thread?

Perhaps.  Give it a shot.  The moment it turns into mk IV of the same conversation, though, I'm bailing.

Fair enough.

[Faust]

Specific example:  No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be¹. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.

Enough is enough, you know?

Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Specific example:  No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be¹. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.

Enough is enough, you know?

Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.

Yep.  Sticking your neck out is an invitation for someone to shit on your head.

[Faust]

Specific example:  No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be¹. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.

Enough is enough, you know?

Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.

Yep.  Sticking your neck out is an invitation for someone to shit on your head.

It must be great to attack anyone who listens and ignore anyone who refutes it. Its the easy option.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Both of them people. Without MLK the black rights movement was getting nowhere and the panthers were already getting a bit blowy uppy. Same with the dieter. India was a fucking powder keg, headed toward an epic bloodbath.

Two bipeds stood up and raised their middle fingers. That's different from a movement. A movement may ride the coat tails of someone with the moxy of MLK of Gandhi but, without that, they just meet up in basements and compete to be most dedicated to the cause.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Specific example:  No matter what other concerns there are out there, pointing them out to whiel the "rape & privilege" chorus is playing gets you shat upon, HARD...No matter how serious the new information might be¹. On the other hand, showing up and saying the whole thing is a pile of shit is perfectly acceptable.

Enough is enough, you know?

Seems to me that the best possible choice is to write the whole thing off as a pile of shit and avoid the alternative happening.

Yep.  Sticking your neck out is an invitation for someone to shit on your head.

Isn't it great to attack anyone who listens and ignore anyone who refutes it.

Most religious violence occurs INSIDE each given religion, squabbling over the interpretation of a line of verse.

That's how we Build The Dream. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Both of them people. Without MLK the black rights movement was getting nowhere and the panthers were already getting a bit blowy uppy.

Medgar Evers begs to differ, as do a couple of hundred other leaders and a few dozen thousand volunteers.

Two bipeds stood up and raised their middle fingers. That's different from a movement. A movement may ride the coat tails of someone with the moxy of MLK of Gandhi but, without that, they just meet up in basements and compete to be most dedicated to the cause.

It wasn't just the two of them.

But your main point is taken.