Breaking with Consensus Reality

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/breakwith.php">CrimethInc...

Over the past years, anarchists have helped popularize the discourses of <a href="http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008all-survivors"><em>consen... in interpersonal relationships as a way to counter <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture">rape culture</a>, and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=yqZQ6X9aln0C&amp;pg=PA17&amp;lpg=PA17&a... in political organizing as an anti-authoritarian approach to decision-making. Recently, however, we’ve seen the language of consent and consensus used to condemn direct action and delegitimize autonomous initiatives.</p>

<p>Does consent discourse offer a useful framework with which to evaluate direct action tactics and strategy? Can we challenge consensus reality effectively while respecting everyone&#8217;s wishes? What&#8217;s the relationship between desire and social transformation? This analysis grapples with these questions, exploring the limits of the politics of consent and proposing an alternative.</p></td><td><img title="Don't put onto @ door what is the fault/work of HxC" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/revenge.jpg"></td></tr></ta...
<!--break-->
<p><a href="http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/images/breakwith/2b.jpg" rel="lightbox[mrpa]"><img src="http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/images/breakwith/2c.jpg" /></a><span class="invisible">-</span><br />

<p>This text is drawn from the publication <a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2012/04/08/into-the-unknownterror-incogni... INCOGNITA</a>, which will soon be available online in full.</p> It is available here in zine form, for distribution on May Day and beyond:<br />

<a href="http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/pdfs/breakingwithprintversion.pdf"><strong>(PDF [1.8 MB] Imposed Zine Version)</strong></a><br />
<a href="http://thecloud.crimethinc.com/pdfs/consentreadonly.pdf"><strong>(PDF [1.7 MB] Online Reading Zine Version)</strong></a></p>

<strong>Breaking with Consensus Reality</strong>

<p>We who fight to create a freer world face a fundamental contradiction. On one hand, we don&rsquo;t want to become a vanguard, &ldquo;leading&rdquo; or imposing our will on others, as that would run counter to our anti-authoritarian values. On the other hand, we believe with good justification that our political goals&mdash;including the destruction of capitalism, the state, and hierarchy&mdash;can&rsquo;t be accomplished without <a href="http://crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/violence.php">strategies that are currently unpalatable to most of our fellow citizens</a>. The impoverishment of millions and the destruction of our ecosystems demand that we act decisively. What criteria will equip us to challenge these systems without resorting to the authoritarian means we condemn?</p>

<p>Some of us have developed a practice of prioritizing <a href="http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008all-survivors" target="_blank"><em>consent</em></a> as a provisional answer to this dilemma. This discourse comes to us through educators who promote it as a tool for fostering mutually respectful sexuality in the midst of a rape culture. Applying this model in our intimate relationships and beyond, we seek to respect others&rsquo; autonomy by not subjecting them to actions that violate their consent&mdash;that is, by staying within the boundaries of others&rsquo; desires as they determine and articulate them. We reject coercion of any form, whether physical, verbal, economic, or otherwise, and assert our self-determination to participate in or abstain from whatever we choose. </p>

<p>Yet outside of the sexual realm, consent discourse doesn&rsquo;t always offer a sufficient framework with which to evaluate direct action tactics and strategy. Knowing whether an action is consensual may not suffice to indicate whether it is effective or worthwhile. Aware that most people oppose some of our tactics, we don&rsquo;t plan our actions on the basis of consent, yet we don&rsquo;t aspire to become a vanguard, either. Furthermore, since we can only desire on the basis of what we know, we&rsquo;re unlikely to achieve liberation from simply fulfilling the desires we have now without changing the conditions that produced them. So how else might we conceive of our political project, if not through the lens of consent?</p>

<p>A close examination of our activities reveals that in setting out to foment insurrection and transform society, we appear to be operating according to a logic of <em>seduction.</em> Are we prepared to accept the implications of this reframing? Let&rsquo;s begin by examining the politics of consent and their limitations.</p>

<strong><h2>Is Consent Enough?</h2></strong>

<p>At first glance, the notion of basing our political practice on a theory of consent makes intuitive sense. What&rsquo;s our critique of the state? It&rsquo;s a body that wields power over us even to the point of life and death, and yet no one ever asked us if we wanted to be governed. Elections don&rsquo;t even begin to offer us the meaningful alternatives true consent would require. It&rsquo;s been said before: our desires will never fit in their ballot boxes. We promote the principle of voluntary association&mdash;the freedom to form whatever groups and collectives we want without being compelled to participate in any. We never had the chance to say no to capitalism, to government, to police, to all the systems of hierarchy that impose their rule&mdash;so clearly those can&rsquo;t be consensual in any meaningful way. As we do away with the coercive systems that dominate our lives, we can reconstruct new social relations based on consent: a world in which no one controls anyone else, in which we can determine our own destinies. </p>

<p>It makes sense . . . doesn&rsquo;t it? Certainly, this discourse of consent offers a compelling way to imagine the world we want to live in. But how does it serve as a strategy for dislodging this one? It&rsquo;s difficult to envision a political practice that stringently respects the consent of all people while simultaneously destroying the fabric of our hierarchical society. If we insist on the unity of means and ends, we have to dismantle coercive institutions and social relationships through non-coercive processes to build a non-coercive society. Abandoning this vision could undermine the very basis of our anarchism. Yet if we don&rsquo;t succeed in dislodging capitalism and the state, the bases of economic and political coercion, we&rsquo;ll never arrive at a society in which a consent-based framework could actually be tenable.</p>

<p>How can we resolve these dilemmas? Let&rsquo;s look more closely at what we mean by consent, and how it operates in our society and in our movements.</p>

<strong><h2>Consensus Reality, Nonviolence, Liberal Consent</h2></strong>

<p>Power and consent are critically intertwined. Power imbalances make it difficult or impossible to give consent freely. Can a much older person have consensual sex with a very young person? Can someone who is subjected to another&rsquo;s economic control freely consent to that person&rsquo;s desires? For consent to be meaningful, it must be possible to say no, any time and for any reason, on one&rsquo;s own terms. When the state monopolizes the use of force and the economy controls access to our very means of survival, we cannot meaningfully choose. We call the boundaries enclosing our ability to consent under these conditions <em>consensus reality.</em></p>

<p>Consensus reality is the range of possible thought and action within a system of power relations. It is enforced not only through traditional institutions of control&mdash;such as mass media, religion, and the family&mdash;but also through the innumerable subtle norms manifested in common sense, civil discourse, and day-to-day life. It isn&rsquo;t simply the aggregate of all our desires, melded together in a great compromise that allows us all to get along, as democratic mythology would have it. Consensus reality constitutes the ruling class&rsquo;s coordinated attempt to uphold their dominance and our exploitation as efficiently as possible. Capitalist democracy secures that efficiency; it is the system that currently provides the largest number of people with incentive to participate in their own exploitation. It offers us a series of meaningless options to disguise a profound lack of agency over our lives. The trump card of capitalist democracy is the idea that everyone&rsquo;s consent is respected in a marketplace of ideas within which desires can be freely expressed and influenced.</p>

<p>We can argue that this marketplace isn&rsquo;t truly free&mdash;corporations control the mass media, some views get more airtime than others, thus the consent is not fully informed&mdash;but this doesn&rsquo;t get at the heart of things. Obviously, equal access to means of influence on a level playing field is impossible in capitalist society. But it is the systems of <em>power,</em> not just speech, that determine the framework within which we experience reality. All political systems&mdash;whether anarchist, fascist, or democratic&mdash;produce particular patterns of social relations. Mere discussion of these systems does not; it cannot transcend the framework in which it occurs.<a class="footnote" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="return overlib('For instance, within capitalist democracy, the very ability to speak &ldquo;freely&rdquo; seems to offer proof of the system&rsquo;s justice by virtue of the state ensuring &ldquo;free speech.&rdquo; In anarchic social relations, our ability to speak freely justifies itself, needing no state to &ldquo;protect&rdquo; it or define its limits. When we frame expressing our desires as &ldquo;exercising a right,&rdquo; we define our legitimacy to act in terms of our relationship to the state, rather than asserting that our desires are inherently valid.', CAPTION, '[1]');" onmouseout="nd();">[1]</a> Free speech discourse offers each of us our own box of colored chalk to decorate the cement blocks around our feet, and calls that freedom; whether we can walk away doesn&rsquo;t even enter into the picture. Our experience of what we are and aren&rsquo;t able to do determines our sense of what is possible far more than our ideas and discourses. To shift the boundaries of our imagination and desires, we have to find ways to make new experiences possible beyond the bounds of consensus reality.</p>

<p>Take, for example, the debates about violence and nonviolence that rage in every organizing coalition and Occupy movement. What is violence? At first glance, the term seems to have no more coherence than the Supreme Court definition of obscenity: <em>I can&rsquo;t define it, but I know it when I see it.</em> This makes it an especially dangerous tool when wielded by liberals to control group norms. But recalling that violence springs from the same root as <em>violation</em> helps us get at the meaning behind how the word is used. What is called violence is any violation of norms about legitimate use of force, norms dictated by the state and incorporated into our consensus reality. The debate about violence is really a coded discourse in which nonviolence stands in for consent; when we attempt to make space for autonomy and diversity of tactics, our opponents perceive us as disregarding consent simply for opposing the terms of consensus reality.</p>

<p>Observe how an anxious liberal from our local Occupy movement, dismayed by an illegal building occupation undertaken by autonomous occupiers, strives to distance the Occupy group from the occupation. He says to a reporter: &ldquo;Our movement is nonviolent, it is peaceful, and it does not break the law.&rdquo; The building occupation involved no physical violence, nor damage to property, nor anything that could be construed as violent even within his own definition, whereas the eviction by rifle-wielding thugs was violent enough to shock people across the political spectrum. How can we make sense of this seeming contradiction?</p>

<p>It seems that the meaningful sense of <em>violence</em> here is a rupture of consensus reality. This liberal wishes to communicate that the building occupation felt like a violation of his consent. Why? Because it was related to a current in which he felt invested, yet he had not been invited to participate in decision-making, and it involved actions that he personally disdained. Of course, we undertook the occupation autonomously precisely for that reason: we knew we could never achieve consensus in the public general assemblies to do something that so dramatically challenged consensus reality. Whether or not the occupation hurt anyone was beside the point: its &ldquo;violence&rdquo; had less to do with its literal effects than its challenge to consensus reality. To him, such a challenge constituted a violation of collective consent. </p>

<p>Let&rsquo;s call this <em>liberal consent</em>: the notion that we must adhere tactically to the most conservative common denominator or else violate others&rsquo; consent. We all have to put up with this system, so the logic goes, whether we chose it or not, because any violation would put us all at risk. This goes beyond a critique of representation&mdash;you shouldn&rsquo;t carry out an action on my behalf without my consent&mdash;to a critique of autonomy, since literally any action that presumes affinity with others is subject to the boundaries dictated by consensus reality.</p>

<p>This is the risk of embracing a framework of political consent. Within this logic, the most moderate elements of any group or coalition will dominate by virtue of their alignment with consensus reality. What&rsquo;s OK for anybody is based on what&rsquo;s OK for everybody, which makes our strategies for changing this world look suspiciously similar to the world we&rsquo;re trying to change. If we do in fact desire a radical break with what exists, let&rsquo;s not trap ourselves in a framework aligned with the systems we want to destroy.</p>

<p>Nonviolence is the only ideology that can comprehensively protect consensus reality against the antagonism of all who would transform it. By pre-emptively condemning anything that exceeds the parameters of civil discourse, it ensures that any resistance will ultimately strengthen the underlying framework of authority, and even passes responsibility for policing on to the loyal opposition. Liberal complicity with violent systems of control can be &ldquo;nonviolent&rdquo; according to this logic, because they accept the boundaries of legitimacy decreed by consensus reality. Just as every pacifist condemns armed struggle and insurrection against the state, the gains of every &ldquo;nonviolent&rdquo; movement and revolution they cite, from Dr. King to Gandhi, rested on a foundation of explicit or threatened state violence. We shake our heads at liberal reluctance to acknowledge that the state is fundamentally rather than incidentally violent, but that violence is woven so seamlessly into consensus reality that it simply doesn&rsquo;t register.</p>

<p>The violence so anxiously opposed by liberals is, by definition, that which ruptures consensus reality. And this is precisely why we consider that violence <em>necessary</em>: framing resistance as registering our &ldquo;dissent&rdquo; does not attack consensus reality but merely identifies our position within it. There are not opposing partisans <em>within</em> consensus reality&mdash;Republicans and Democrats, activists and reactionaries&mdash;but only partisans <em>of</em> consensus reality and partisans <em>against</em> it. </p>

<p>In short, the liberal notion of consent is a barrier to revolution. By definition, breaking consensus reality cannot be consensual. We have to move beyond political consent discourse to imagine liberating strategies for transforming reality.</p>

<strong><h2>Can We Rescue the Political Discourse of Consent?</h2></strong>

<p>So liberal consent is a tool for defending consensus reality, useless to our project of liberation. But that doesn&rsquo;t necessarily mean we have to give up on the discourse of consent itself. Are there ways to respond to these objections within a consent-based framework? Let&rsquo;s explore some of the possible responses to liberal consent rhetoric.</p>

<p><strong><em>Decision-making should be weighted to prioritize the most affected.</em></strong> According to this principle, the greater the impact a decision will have on a person, the more leverage he or she should have in the decision-making process. For instance, the opinions of a poor neighborhood&rsquo;s long-term residents should count for more than those of developers or wealthier newcomers when determining whether to build new condominiums. Thus, how consensual an action is depends not on whether every citizen, equal under the law, would check yes or no about it on a ballot; rather, individuals&rsquo; feelings are weighted proportionally according to how the consequences will impact them.</p>

<p>This sidesteps some of the problems of negotiating political consent across power differentials; it looks attractive as a way to navigate conflicting priorities in a society based on values beyond the profit motive. But does this principle offer us useful guidance on how to get there? We can&rsquo;t easily determine who will be most affected by strategies intended to create unpredictable situations so as to open up the horizon for transformation. Some activists see those most <em>vulnerable</em> to the potential consequences of militant tactics as the most <em>impacted</em> by any escalation beyond the confines of consensus reality politics. In practice, this concern can function to impose a tactical conservatism, reproducing the effect of liberal consensus and creating a dichotomy between resisting effectively and prioritizing others&rsquo; safety.<a class="footnote" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="return overlib('This has happened again and again, from the post-inauguration march through Adams Morgan in Washington DC in 2005 to the Oscar Grant riots, any time collective action isn&rsquo;t peaceful, legal, and fully pacified. People who are more vulnerable to state violence or other potential consequences of escalation&mdash;and, more often, self-appointed spokespeople whose privilege enables them to feel entitled to represent others&mdash;speak out against militant tactics. Since many anarchist agitators are shielded in part by the privileges of white skin, a male body, no children, and legal citizenship, it is held to be irresponsible to raise the stakes without the input of more vulnerable people who may be affected.Anarchists often counter that those shielded by privilege are precisely the ones who should put their bodies on the line. But in large mixed crowds with a potential for explosive conflict, the question of consent inevitably rears its head. Self-righteous leftists assume that the purpose of massing in the streets is simply to &ldquo;speak truth to power,&rdquo; but the rest of us have to grapple with how to precipitate conflict in ways that don&rsquo;t reinforce the wedges our enemies would drive between us &ldquo;bad protestors&rdquo; and our potential comrades.', CAPTION, '[2]');" onmouseout="nd();">[2]</a></p>

<p>On the other hand, in trying to legitimize our efforts according to this principle, we sometimes fall into the trap of using the example of a few individuals who support an action to stand in for an entire imagined demographic. We ascribe a mythical authenticity to specific local, working-class, indigenous, or other people who express enthusiasm for our activities, implicitly writing off those who don&rsquo;t. We make such supporters into a sort of prosthesis for ourselves that entitles us to act against the ostensible majority, imagining our chosen comrades to represent the most affected. Every activist has a preferred imaginary friend, whether the workers favored by IWW organizers, the West Virginia locals courted by opponents of mountaintop removal, or the extras in hip hop videos that <a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/insurrection.php">insurre... hope will join them in the streets.</p>

<p>This is not only tokenizing, but dangerous, as it can lead us to overestimate popular support for our actions. Yet it is supported by a variety of rationalizations: just because we don&rsquo;t see public support doesn&rsquo;t mean it isn&rsquo;t there; the people who are most marginalized&mdash;who, we assume, are most likely to support our unpopular actions&mdash;are the least free to express that support publicly; and so on. There is some truth in these arguments. But when we gamble on this imaginary-friend fantasy as an effort to weigh by proxy the consent of the unrepresented&mdash;now represented by our presumed affinity with them&mdash;we&rsquo;re just deluding ourselves.</p>

<p><strong><em>Decision-making must be broadened to include all the people impacted.</em></strong> Often, many of those who will be impacted by supposedly consensual decisions do not have appropriate leverage on them. For instance, the university&rsquo;s board of governors can decide by consensus to raise tuition, but what kind of consensus is that without the participation of the students who&rsquo;ll be paying it? If decisions included all stakeholders and elites couldn&rsquo;t impose them by force, wouldn&rsquo;t there be hope for a politics of consent?</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this framework is more useful for preventing actions or challenging their validity after the fact than for initiating them. The impacts of our actions ripple out far beyond our ability to trace them or the range of lives they will touch. We cannot even hope to be aware of every person who would be impacted by a decision, much less solicit meaningful input from each of them to confirm or deny consensus. In practical terms, expanding the participation in decision-making to everyone affected would either require resorting to majority-rule democracy&mdash;not a consent-based framework&mdash;or accepting the impossibility of ever making decisions.</p>

<p>Here we have to confront the reality that broad consensus on many issues will never exist. We might be able to agree about what to cook for dinner, but on the real questions about how to organize society and distribute resources, no consensus is possible today. In a class society stratified by white supremacy and patriarchy, our interests are fundamentally in conflict. Certainly we share many interests in common, and we can imagine worlds in which people aren&rsquo;t pitted against one another in contests for status and survival. But we will not be able to desert this world by consensus.<a class="footnote" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="return overlib('One of the implications of this analysis is that we must unflinchingly recognize conflict as a reality. The vision we&rsquo;re putting forward aims not <em>just</em> to create a world in which all is consensual. We strive to prioritize each other&rsquo;s consent as much as possible, while recognizing that sometimes we really are in conflict, and we have to acknowledge conflicts rather than sweeping them under the rug of an imposed consensus. Our ideal is not a world without conflict, but a world in which conflicts don&rsquo;t produce hierarchies and oppression. We envision associations that can come together and break apart according to our desires; unlike the state, these would require no imposed consensus.', CAPTION, '[3]');" onmouseout="nd();">[3]</a></p>

<p><strong><em>We&rsquo;re acting in self-defense.</em></strong> As this reasoning goes, the operation of oppressive institutions constitutes an attack on us, and we don&rsquo;t need the consent of our attackers to defend ourselves. This harm isn&rsquo;t always on a literal, direct, individual level, as in <em>that specific Starbucks window makes my individual life increasingly precarious and impossible.</em> In a hopelessly complex global economy that masks the root causes of the harm it creates, nearly any attempt to launch a defensive counterattack will seem either symbolic or misdirected. Still, in this sense, direct action can be framed as defending ourselves against violations of our consent by state and capital.</p>

<p>But the rhetoric of direct action as self-defense doesn&rsquo;t offer us much guidance for how to move forward. In this model, state and capital are the protagonists, and the various formulations of <em>we</em> that we self-defend the mere objects of their actions. We can only react, not strategize new initiatives. Furthermore, the framework of self-defense is based in the terms of liberal individualism, with our private personal rights beginning where those of another end. What is it that we&rsquo;re defending? Our role in society as defined under capitalism and patriarchy? Our rights as dictated by the democratic state? To get free, we should be fighting to <em>destroy</em> our selves! Not our bodies and lives, of course, but our selfhood as it&rsquo;s constituted by state and capital.</p>

<p>If selfhood extends as far as the bank windows, if our selves overlap so extensively, we need another framework&mdash;we&rsquo;re not just defending <em>ourselves.</em> At best, self-defense is a justification, not a praxis; at worst, it&rsquo;s a disingenuous smokescreen that leaves us without a framework to evaluate our effectiveness. </p>

<p><strong><em>Consent has to be informed.</em></strong> In all consent-based ethical systems, medical, sexual, and otherwise, authentic consent requires full knowledge of the implications of a decision. On the political level, this criticism goes, if we all had access to complete information, we would make decisions differently. This is the basic hypothesis of liberalism: the best of all possible worlds will result when people have access to all relevant information and the means to discuss it openly in order to make rational decisions.</p>

<p>The fatal flaw in this reasoning is that it fails to take power dynamics into account. When access to money and property determines our ability to act, under the rule of a state that reserves the sole right to employ violence, knowledge is not in fact power. Furthermore, it seems to demand a politics of total transparency, which would either preclude illegal activity or consign us all to the certainty of prison. An informed consent framework neither enables us to imagine how to achieve a consensus for revolution nor suffices to determine how much information to share with whom about the actions we take to fight for it. </p>

<p align="center">* * * *</p>
<p>In concluding that the consent framework can&rsquo;t accommodate our political needs, we&rsquo;re not endorsing the violation of consent. Rather, we&rsquo;re acknowledging that the consent framework has not been sufficient to transcend the self-defeating dichotomy between either respecting consent to such an extent that we can&rsquo;t overthrow capitalism or disregarding it entirely. The point is to come up with a framework that solves those problems, not to throw out what gains we&rsquo;ve made already.<a class="footnote" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="return overlib('Also, what does this imply in the realm of sexuality? Remember, our goal in acknowledging the limitations of consent discourse is not to discard it entirely but to determine where it can take us and where else we need to go. Consent provides us with crucial tools for treating each other with care in sexual interactions. At the same time, we can challenge simplistic notions of desire: some of our most deeply erotic moments occur not when we finally achieve a desire previously fixed within us, but when we experience unexpected and unprecedented forms of pleasure. Perhaps insights from our discourse of political seduction can offer perspective on our sexuality, but we maintain our allegiance to consent discourse in sex. Our critique of political consent discourse isn&rsquo;t abstract, but based on its <em>tactical</em> shortcomings, the limitations of what it allows us to do and imagine. By contrast, sexual consent discourse has proven its utility in our daily lives, inducing us to examine our desires and transform how we relate to each other erotically.', CAPTION, '[4]');" onmouseout="nd();">[4]</a></p>

<p>In fact, our basis for opposing capitalism and hierarchy goes far beyond the claim that these systems operate without our consent. Ultimately, we fight for new worlds out of <em>desire,</em> and in order to move beyond the limitations of political consent discourse we have to look more closely at what desire is.</p>

<strong><h2>Desire, Consent, and Politics</h2></strong>

<p>What is desire? Let&rsquo;s conceive of desires not as internal elements emanating from within individuals, but as autonomous forces that flow through them. Individuals don&rsquo;t desire things; whole societies produce and circulate desires, even if those desires remain submerged in most people. The fundamental unit of our analysis is not the individual human being, but the desire, with humans as the medium.</p>

<p>How can we conceive of desire and selfhood as they relate to consent and political action? The existing consent discourse presupposes static notions of self and desire. It presumes that desire is monolithic, composed of a single thrust rather than multiple pulls in different directions. When we have multiple desires, the desire that garners the plurality in our internal electoral process is assumed to be the only one that counts. Consent discourse presumes that what we want is knowable and can be articulated within the framework of our shared reality.</p>

<p>In reality, the desires we experience are not fixed or unitary. They shift constantly based on our experiences and contexts. They are multiple, contradictory, and divergent, surprising us with their diversity, frustrating us with their mutability. They resist our attempts to confine or domesticate them. They simply can&rsquo;t fit into a two-dimensional binary model of consent, wherein we either want something or we don&rsquo;t. This realization is terrifying, but it opens up new ways of understanding the revolutionary project in relation to the consensus reality arrayed against us. </p>

<p>The nature of desire is complex and centrifugal, in contrast to the simplifying and centripetal nature of <em>interests.</em> The traditional approach of the left is for organizers to assist constituencies in winning victories that build power, which will presumably be deployed towards increasingly radical ends. The goals of these victories are generally framed in terms of the <em>interests</em> of the constituency, not their <em>desires.</em> This is a clever trick: as interests appear to be an objective rather than subjective matter, it is easier for an outside managerial class to get away with defining and representing them. Interests can be framed as unitary, coherent, and integrative, whereas desires are multiple, inchoate, contradictory. Identity groups share interests; friends and lovers share desires. Interests are composed of calcified blocks of desire standardized to make sense within consensus reality.</p>

<p>Not only is desire far more complex and unstable than our discourses allow, it&rsquo;s also shaped by the conditions of our misery and exploitation. Even amid contradictions and chaos, the range of what it is possible to desire rarely escapes the confines of consensus reality. Who really imagines that in a free world, we&rsquo;d dream of ergonomic chairs for our cubicles, more TV channels and brands of detergent, longer chains and softer cages? This is not to demean the struggles of those who fight for better conditions within this system. It&rsquo;s just to say that we would be paltry revolutionaries indeed if we based our programs merely on the consensus desires of groups whose allies we want to be.</p>

<p>The task of the revolutionary is not the task of the ally. We are not here to make the dreams of the proletariat come true. The proletariat is produced by capitalism, which we want to destroy. The task of the revolutionary is to shift our collective sense of the possible, so that our desires and the realities they drive us to create can shift in turn. We are here to transform reality beyond where our notions of consent can lead us. We need a different discourse to imagine the transformations that can open pathways out of consensus reality.</p>

<strong><h2>Introducing Seduction</h2></strong>

<p>There&rsquo;s another framework that seems to be implied by our current practice, whether or not we acknowledge it. That framework is <em>seduction.</em></p>

<p>What is seduction? It&rsquo;s a rather unsavory concept, bringing to mind manipulative attempts to induce others to let themselves to be used for one&rsquo;s own ends. In a sexual context, it can imply either a romantic, charismatic, persuasive use of charm to propose a sexual encounter, or a way to trick someone into succumbing to one&rsquo;s advances. The connotations are discomfiting, but the salient factor is the implication that the seducer <em>creates</em> a desire, rather than simply unearthing it. It is this sense that we find most interesting in considering the problems of desire and consensus reality on the political level.</p>

<p>When we <em>seduce,</em> we present someone who ostensibly doesn&rsquo;t want something with a new situation in which they may want it after all. Whereas consent focuses on obtaining the go-ahead for an external action&mdash;&ldquo;Is this OK?&rdquo;&mdash;seduction focuses internally, on desire: &ldquo;Could you <em>want</em> this?&rdquo; Our practices of seduction don&rsquo;t aim to induce others to do things they don&rsquo;t want to do, but to induce others to <em>want to</em> do them, in the most meaningful sense: to want to take on all the risks and pleasures they entail.</p>

<p>Again, we don&rsquo;t believe that we can persuade everyone to consent to our dreams of anarchist revolution; not only is the deck stacked against us, but the dealer, the table, and the whole house. We don&rsquo;t buy into the idea that our goals are what everybody &ldquo;really&rdquo; wants, nor do we assume that everyone would adopt our views if only they had access to all the right information. We don&rsquo;t claim to represent anyone beyond ourselves, nor to stand in for any silent majority; in that sense, anarchist revolution is not a <em>democratic</em> project. Nor do we, despairing of those things, decide that to be true to our principles we must give up on transforming society altogether and retreat into isolation among the few comrades with whom we can establish meaningful self-determined consensus. We don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s hopeless to resist in the face of the stranglehold of consensus reality. We want a different path forward, one that doesn&rsquo;t assume desire to be fixed, that doesn&rsquo;t rely on liberal consent.</p>

<p>We neither wish to impose our will on others by force, nor to disregard their desires. Instead, we want to perform a kind of magic, an alchemical operation. We want to <em>induce</em> desires, not simply <em>fulfill</em> them.<a class="footnote" href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="return overlib('Wait, there&rsquo;s nothing liberating about attempting to induce desires in others. That&rsquo;s the function of the advertising industry, the lever of demand that has driven capitalism over the past century. Democracy purports to be a marketplace of ideas where we can all talk about what we want and then decide; different configurations of desire are constantly at war. Ad firms don&rsquo;t just create specific desires, they enforce a mode of desiring that can be routed through the consumer economy. Propaganda, subliminal messaging, induced addiction, outright violence: these comprise a brutal arsenal aimed at us every moment of the day. Around the globe, the military clears the path for neoliberal pillaging, while NGOs get into the business of inducing people to want to be successful at generating currencies that can be exchanged on the global market. Ought we not be suspicious of a project framed in such transparently manipulative terms? As grim as it looks, this vista reveals that if we are not partisans of certain modes of desiring, we will remain objects rather than subjects within these desiring wars. We cannot retreat into essentialist notions of unearthing our &ldquo;true&rdquo; desires from some internal vault, nor a pseudo-Buddhist project of extinguishing desire on an individual level while the world burns. What sets us apart is that we strive to create a world in which every person can realize her unique potential on her own terms, rather than simply pushing for this or that option within the current conditions.', CAPTION, '[5]');" onmouseout="nd();">[5]</a></p>

<p>As anarchists, our greatest strength lies not in the coherence and reason of our ideology, but in the passionate actions we undertake and the ungovernable lives we lead. Let&rsquo;s not try to convert people to anarchism; let&rsquo;s set out, with mischievous glee, to infect everyone around us with the anarchy that flows in our veins. Let&rsquo;s produce situations in which anarchy is possible, even likely&mdash;even <em>desirable</em> to those who might not feel any inclination towards it today. </p>

<p align="right" style="color: #600">How did you become an anarchist? Did you emerge from the womb in a black hoodie? Did you &ldquo;always know&rdquo; you were going to crave riots, stale bagels, and photocopy scams? If not, chances are you had some sort of experience that opened you to a sense of possibility you hadn&rsquo;t previously been able to imagine. For me, it came at age 18, during the height of the anti-Iraq war protests, when I heard a vague rumor that I should show up at a certain concert. I did, and lo and behold, when it ended a group of maniacs appeared with drums and banners, and before I knew it I&rsquo;d joined 200 others marching in the street, permits be damned. We were unstoppable. The blood boiled in my veins and I howled ecstatically until I lost my voice. Things were never the same again.</p>

<p align="right" style="color: #600">Now, I&rsquo;d participated in polite permitted marches before. If you&rsquo;d asked me if I desired to go on a feisty unpermitted midnight march, I probably would have thought it sounded cool. But I didn&rsquo;t actively desire it beforehand; if I&rsquo;d been forthrightly invited, I might have declined out of anxiousness or indifference. The desire was generated by the context, the mystery, and the experience itself. I suspect that the key was that it was unexpected and illicit: it took me beyond myself, opening some door of desire that couldn&rsquo;t be shut. Had someone asked me in advance whether I would consent to participate, that might have undermined the very sense of liberation I experienced.</p>

<p align="right" style="color: #600">Trust me, I&rsquo;m as uncomfortable with the implications of this as you are. But we need to look honestly at the transformative experiences that opened the door for us into radical politics and think about how we can construct and open those types of doors for others. If we&rsquo;re not going to be a vanguard and we&rsquo;re not going to convince everyone to join us through mere rational discourse, this might be what we&rsquo;ve got to work with.</p>

<strong><h2>Transformation, Invitation, Contagion</h2></strong>

<p>How does seduction work? We hypothesize that seduction unfolds via three processes: <em>transformation, invitation,</em> and <em>contagion.</em> We <em>transform</em> circumstances, creating space for new possibilities and thus new desires to flourish; we <em>invite</em> others to participate in these new situations, to experiment with different modes of action and desire; and we <em>infect</em> others with curiosity, an insatiable desire for freedom, and the means to experiment towards it.</p>

<p>We strive for <em>transformation</em> because if we desire on the basis of what we know, we can only induce new desires that exceed the confines of our current reality by shifting the conditions in which we live. Sometimes it can be as simple as doing things in the street without permits, or using a park or building for an entirely new purpose. Disobedience is crucial to transformation; nothing opens up a sense of possibility like literally breaking the rules. But our behavior is constrained by far more than traffic laws and zoning regulations; social norms, gender roles, and innumerable other systems shape how we act, and each way we&rsquo;re constrained provides new terrain for transformation. The key lies in challenging what&rsquo;s taken for granted in a way that opens up the possibility to act differently, and to imagine how the world would be different if those rules and borders were no longer fixed.</p>

<p><em>Invitation</em> requires neither persuasion via rational discourse nor imposition by force. Here we maintain the spirit of consent discourse, asserting our respect for the wishes of others and opposition to coercion. We aspire to a world based on voluntary association, in which participation is based on our own free choice rather than force or manipulation, and thus we aim to prefigure that world through our methods of creative resistance.</p>

<p>This can take many forms: leaving the doors open in the occupied building, modeling mutual aid at public Really Really Free Markets, offering black bandanas and cans of paint as the march leaves the show. Of course, we can&rsquo;t literally invite others to participate in many actions beforehand, either because they have to be organized clandestinely or because we honestly don&rsquo;t know what will happen. But we can shape our actions to maximize the agency of potential participants.</p>

<p>Seduction casts the invitee as the protagonist, the one whose agency counts&mdash;in contrast to consent discourse, which merely seeks <em>permission.</em> The whole point is for people to discover new desires, to want to do something they didn&rsquo;t want before; they have to be in the driver&rsquo;s seat for that to be possible. In this sense, we are using seduction to mean the opposite of its traditional negative connotation of trying to get something from people against their will or at their expense.</p>

<p>Finally, we aspire to invite others into practices that will prove <em>contagious</em>: ideas that self-replicate, models that can be applied in a variety of circumstances, attitudes that prove infectious. <em>Contagion</em> ensures that rebellion isn&rsquo;t restricted to activists, scenesters, or any other particular group. Only when revolt spreads so widely that it can no longer be quarantined to a specific demographic will anarchy move permanently beyond the anarchists. We succeed when others emerge from the spaces we create feeling more powerful. We win when the ruptures of possibility we open prove impossible to close.</p>

<strong><h2>When Seduction Fails</h2></strong>

<p>Unfortunately, our actions don&rsquo;t always achieve these goals. <a href="http://asheville11defense.com/" target="_blank">Sometimes</a> we try to cast spells of transformation and they fail.</p>

<p>One way our efforts can go awry is when they position the organizing cabal as the protagonists rather than the invitees we hope to seduce into participation. In these cases, our actions don&rsquo;t spread, but remain the province of a distinct group. For partisans of transformation, what counts is the circulation and contagion of subversive ideas and practices, not the power of a specific social body&mdash;be it anarchists or the Party.</p>

<p>Sometimes when our seductions fail, those we&rsquo;ve attempted to invite feel used rather than seduced. Over the years, this has proved one of the primary causes of the unpopularity of unilateral militant activity. It&rsquo;s flattering to be offered a role as a protagonist in an exciting story, but it isn&rsquo;t so pleasant to feel that others are trying to take advantage of you. When people speak with frustration in a debriefing conversation about the lack of consent implicit in how an action played out, we must understand that as a failure of seduction. When they speak of consent, they&rsquo;re describing their reaction to the actions that took place; our analysis of seduction treats the <em>desires</em> underlying these as the center of gravity.</p>

<p>Perhaps we can best understand such conflicts by reframing them: they are not merely contests between people with different desires, but contests between different desires playing out between people as well as within individuals. The failure of an unpopular action doesn&rsquo;t stem from the fact that it failed to <em>meet</em> the desires of participants or bystanders. Rather, the action failed to <em>enable</em> subversive desires to arise or flow into new hosts. Critics who frame their objections in consent discourse may not be fundamentally opposed to the tactics in question after all; they may simply not feel that they had the chance to become protagonists in their own stories of rebellion.</p>

<strong><h2>Into the Unknown</h2></strong>

<p>What are anarchists good for? We don&rsquo;t see ourselves as &ldquo;the&rdquo; revolutionary subject, nor its vanguard or representative. But that doesn&rsquo;t mean we&rsquo;re irrelevant to the struggles and upheavals around us. We up the ante and rep the anti; we call bluffs and take dares; we discover <a href="http://www.linesofflight.net/linesofflight.htm" target="_blank">lines of flight</a> out of consensus reality. We take risks to induce others to share them with us; we take care of each other so we can be dangerous together. </p>

<p>Ultimately, the politics of seduction don&rsquo;t rely on rational argumentation to influence people. We dive headlong into the terrifying fires of transformation, allowing strange passions to seize us. It&rsquo;s not that these desires are &ldquo;ours&rdquo;; rather, we are theirs. We become lightning rods that crackle with flows of charged desire.</p>

<p>Let&rsquo;s not forget the importance of seducing <em>ourselves</em> with our actions. It&rsquo;s frighteningly easy for activism to ossify into dreary, repetitive routines. Actions that don&rsquo;t emerge out of our own desires are unlikely to seduce us or anyone else. Sure, some kids will be radicalized by the Food Not Bombs run by four burnt-out punks who resent every Sunday they spend in the kitchen. But we forge our deepest relationships of struggle in collectively experiencing the new, the exciting, the terrifying. It&rsquo;s not only beautiful but <em>strategic</em> to live lives that push to the outermost edges of what&rsquo;s possible.</p>

<p>The stakes are high. From consent discourse, we retain the prioritization of caring for others and paying attention to their needs. We must never disregard the well-being of those we invite into zones of transformation; yet neither can we play it safe and allow consensus reality to dictate our range of possible dreams and actions. We cannot promise safety, but we can share in the danger of the unknown, in its pleasures and its risks.</p>

<p align="center"><a href="http://cloudfront.crimethinc.com/images/breakwith/2b.jpg" rel="lightbox[breakwith]"><img src="http://cloudfront.crimethinc.com/images/breakwith/2a.jpg" width="500" height="375"/></a></p>

<p><em>Contact the authors at <a href="mailto:terrorincognita@riseup.net" target="_blank">terrorincognita@riseup.net</a>.</em></p>

<div id="footnoteprint">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>[1] For instance, within capitalist democracy, the very ability to speak &ldquo;freely&rdquo; seems to offer proof of the system&rsquo;s justice by virtue of the state ensuring &ldquo;free speech.&rdquo; In anarchic social relations, our ability to speak freely justifies itself, needing no state to &ldquo;protect&rdquo; it or define its limits. When we frame expressing our desires as &ldquo;exercising a right,&rdquo; we define our legitimacy to act in terms of our relationship to the state, rather than asserting that our desires are inherently valid.</p>
<p>[2] This has happened again and again, from the post-inauguration march through Adams Morgan in Washington DC in 2005 to the Oscar Grant riots, any time collective action isn&rsquo;t peaceful, legal, and fully pacified. People who are more vulnerable to state violence or other potential consequences of escalation&mdash;and, more often, self-appointed spokespeople whose privilege enables them to feel entitled to represent others&mdash;speak out against militant tactics. Since many anarchist agitators are shielded in part by the privileges of white skin, a male body, no children, and legal citizenship, it is held to be irresponsible to raise the stakes without the input of more vulnerable people who may be affected.Anarchists often counter that those shielded by privilege are precisely the ones who should put their bodies on the line. But in large mixed crowds with a potential for explosive conflict, the question of consent inevitably rears its head. Self-righteous leftists assume that the purpose of massing in the streets is simply to &ldquo;speak truth to power,&rdquo; but the rest of us have to grapple with how to precipitate conflict in ways that don&rsquo;t reinforce the wedges our enemies would drive between us &ldquo;bad protestors&rdquo; and our potential comrades.</p>
<p>[3] One of the implications of this analysis is that we must unflinchingly recognize conflict as a reality. The vision we&rsquo;re putting forward aims not <em>just</em> to create a world in which all is consensual. We strive to prioritize each other&rsquo;s consent as much as possible, while recognizing that sometimes we really are in conflict, and we have to acknowledge conflicts rather than sweeping them under the rug of an imposed consensus. Our ideal is not a world without conflict, but a world in which conflicts don&rsquo;t produce hierarchies and oppression. We envision associations that can come together and break apart according to our desires; unlike the state, these would require no imposed consensus.</p>
<p>[4] Also, what does this imply in the realm of sexuality? Remember, our goal in acknowledging the limitations of consent discourse is not to discard it entirely but to determine where it can take us and where else we need to go. Consent provides us with crucial tools for treating each other with care in sexual interactions. At the same time, we can challenge simplistic notions of desire: some of our most deeply erotic moments occur not when we finally achieve a desire previously fixed within us, but when we experience unexpected and unprecedented forms of pleasure. Perhaps insights from our discourse of political seduction can offer perspective on our sexuality, but we maintain our allegiance to consent discourse in sex. Our critique of political consent discourse isn&rsquo;t abstract, but based on its <em>tactical</em> shortcomings, the limitations of what it allows us to do and imagine. By contrast, sexual consent discourse has proven its utility in our daily lives, inducing us to examine our desires and transform how we relate to each other erotically.</p>
<p>[5] Wait, there&rsquo;s nothing liberating about attempting to induce desires in others. That&rsquo;s the function of the advertising industry, the lever of demand that has driven capitalism over the past century. Democracy purports to be a marketplace of ideas where we can all talk about what we want and then decide; different configurations of desire are constantly at war. Ad firms don&rsquo;t just create specific desires, they enforce a mode of desiring that can be routed through the consumer economy. Propaganda, subliminal messaging, induced addiction, outright violence: these comprise a brutal arsenal aimed at us every moment of the day. Around the globe, the military clears the path for neoliberal pillaging, while NGOs get into the business of inducing people to want to be successful at generating currencies that can be exchanged on the global market. Ought we not be suspicious of a project framed in such transparently manipulative terms? As grim as it looks, this vista reveals that if we are not partisans of certain modes of desiring, we will remain objects rather than subjects within these desiring wars. We cannot retreat into essentialist notions of unearthing our &ldquo;true&rdquo; desires from some internal vault, nor a pseudo-Buddhist project of extinguishing desire on an individual level while the world burns. What sets us apart is that we strive to create a world in which every person can realize her unique potential on her own terms, rather than simply pushing for this or that option within the current conditions.</p>
</div>

Comments

I'm glad this is finally online. Awesome. I bet the discussion about it will be messy, but it's gotta happen. Props to the people turning this stuff out.

People can be exploited/victimized "with their consent" by a skillful exploiter.

Case in point, watch these women who actively indicate their desire not to model in lingerie(!), subsequently be exploited for sex ('rape' anyone?) "with consent" on video:

http://www.xvideos.com/?k=netvideogirls (NSFW assuming you have a job and cruise @news at work)

and the antipornography second wave dragon rears it's head once again

That's a porn site. Not fooled. Fuck you.

You have a very confused concept of consent. Sex workers can consent, they can also be raped. Work is not rape. It is exploitation under capitalism but all professions are exploitation. You can't escape the market... as for the narrative of consent in that specific video, you understand that sex work is a lot like acting, its market driven like any other commodity and that narratives of 'coerced' consent are common right? Knee jerk two dimesional victimization is disrespectful, not that you respect sex workers as you seem to think them incapable of agency...

This is a good point but I think there is a question somewhere in this as to whether anyone consents to any sort of work in a meaningful way...

Since sex workers often (not always) choose their profession and could do something else, it seems reasonable to say that they aren't being raped every time they do their job. On the other hand, most people can't choose not to work period. I sure as hell don't feel like I've fully consented to doing my job (not sex work) and I try hard to do it badly or not at all if I can get away with it. For example.

no one consents to work itself, because we're basically just born into a world that has already decided that we have to work to survive. and i dont mean work defined as doing something, i mean wage labor.

within this generalized coercion which is often taken for granted or inevitable, a lot of people consent to the particular aspects of work.

okay yeah but then, like, it seems to me that if you argue that sex workers are routinely raped, you're not really claiming that they have less agency than other workers, you're just pointing out that work is compulsory. no?

a similar example might be that since marriages exist in the context of compulsory heterosexuality and rape culture, there can't truly be consensual sex within a marriage either.

I'm not sure if I like this line of reasoning or not...

yeah. it is a horrible line of reasoning.

why though? the only thing I don't like about it is that it's hell of depressing and it implicates me personally in an uncomfortable way.

Illogical. Fourth wave, please.

What's illogical about it, seriously I am interested in talking about this.

fourth meal?

second breakfast!

YYEEAAHHH!!! LET GO GET SOME!!

Get in my belly

It's fucking staged, you retard. They're acting. These women are professional porn stars.

not 2 b ttly superficial but why the same photo x2?

This is the newest avante garde method in design. If you don't like it the door is over here.

ugh. the libcom troll is pretending to be a troll pretending to troll crimethinc by endorsing libcom in order to actually keep directing people to fucking libcom, which sucks. it's kind of cool he has to do this so circuitously, but really, can't we just forget they ever existed already?

I have to commend the logic here, such exquisite trolling.

trolling is the use of kneejerk arguments to provoke pointless debate using trite positions.

@news is a troll site, by definition. Welcome to the 4chan for the black flag crowd.

That's anokchan

trolling is far finer of an art than you believe. the reason you don't understand this is that you've only been able to detect the low-level, tenderfoot trolls. the master-level trolls have taken you completely.

I've seen the finest trolls the net has to offer. Trolling isn't about subtlety, but even if I concede that you're right you don't argue my point that @news is a troll site, crass or refined.

I just come here for the lulz.

I saw the finest trolls of my generation making total destroy, eating quinoa naked/in drag as themselves in the negro orgs at dawn looking for an angry fix/not-hipsters burning for the new demon connection/to the starry YOUtube in the machinery of night...

Did i miss something, what does trolling have to do with the problematic politics of consent?

who poverty and free box tatters and hollow-eyed and high-horsed sat up commenting in the supernatural darkness of cold-water squats floating across the tops of cities contemplating anarchy,

who bared their brains to Riot Clubs under the El and saw Insurrectionist angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,

who passed through universities with radiant cool molotovs hallucinating Revolution and Bakunin-light tragedy among the scholars of war,

who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene circle A's on the windows of the student union,

who cowered in unkeptup trainyards in Carharts and bandanas, eating their meals from wastebaskets and listening to the Train through the fence,

who got busted in their pubic beards returning through the Alameda with a backpack of rocks for Oakland,

who threw fire and paint bombs or lit bottles of turpentine in Pradise Alley, life, or purgatorised their struggles looking for consensus night after night,

with dreams, with vegan pizza, with waking nightmares, alcohol and locks and endless trolls...

Hurrah!

trollery was an art my college forgot to taught, they thought we could learn through.
i never forgot the look my english professor flashed me as a took my diploma on that grand stage
yesterday i was shot
i am poor, a drunkard, a troll

Trolling is an art, like everything else.

everything is trolling, just some of it is more artful.

These lifestylists are never going to get it.

hee

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Wait, you're not serious, are you? If you're going there, I hope the door does hit you, and injures you severely.

Don't tell me someone is still seriously accusing the above authors of lifestylism in 2012. That's fucking ridiculous.

maybe you won't understand this
but i think you have been trolled

It has to be trolling if they're endorsing libcom. What was the thing a little while back about libcom supporting someone who had collaborated with the police?

is there a link for that?

this is part of the thread: http://anarchistnews.org/node/15545

i think really it was a pretty confusing affair, hard to tell what was going on from a distance.

anyway let's not get off topic here.

you're right comrade, let's get back on topic. uh, what was it? lifestylism?

fuck you and fuck that horrible, reactionary website.

you mean the aufheben vs tp;tg thing?

I can't vouch for that; I just find their politics outdated and I loathe their self-righteous arrogance.

Are you talking about libcom or CrimethInc. here?

libcom. Crimethinc. are OK by me.

CrimethInc. They are a bunch of bagel eating oogly lifestylists. Who would ever think that libcom's politics are outdates? Syndicalism is as relevant now as it ever was.

IGTT 2/10

>Syndicalism is as relevant now as it ever was

You got that right!

Yeah! Super relevant. Once we take over the means of producing coffee and sandwiches we can move onto taking over the means of producing finance! EXPROPRIATE THE COFFEE BEANS!

ONCE WE EXPROPRIATE THE DUMPSTERS AND WINDOWS WE CAN REDISTRIBUTE THE DECOMPOSING LETTUCE AND FRAGMENTS OF GLASS.

Good point. No one produces anything anymore. Those coffee beans were picked by robots and I don't weld and fabricate steel for a living.

Just so ya'll know, this wasn't me. I don't say things like this anymore.

mustache

Hahahaha. You got trolled so hard. Hahaha.

Hahahaha. You got trolled so hard. Hahaha.

CRIMETHINC.: OFFAL FROM OOGLES

you're not even a troll. you're a bot.

parsing error ()

New CrimethInc. article? Might as well: CTRL+F bagel

CrimethInc. delivers.

a+

Good to see them acknowledging their roots!

CTRL+F bagel = Crimethinc
CTRL+F manarchist = (former) Bash Back!
CTRL+F unions = IWW
CTRL+F Agamben = IEF
CTRL+F lol = worker
CTRL+F the void = Applied Nonexistence
CTRL+F state communist allies = RAAN
CTRL+F fuck the Ashville 11 = platformists

Agamben has a silly name.

i know. gorgio??? wtf is that?

G I O R G I O
The gospel acording to St. Mathew

oh hee man yeah especially when you figure out it's to be pronounced uh GOM bin

CTRL+F stupid fucking posts = ^ this

i just cntrlf'd "stupid fucking posts," and all it turned up was yours.

true story

Oh shit, I just tried it and yours came up too!

How do we have this conversation with the liberals before May Day, though? Cause you know afterewards it's going to be all the same fights all over again.

go faster

Troll hard, troll fast, troll relentlessly.
Show them how fun transgression can be.
KEEP THEM BALLS IN THE AIR

the is the only good part of terror incognita. but it is very very good.

yeah, I hated all that stuff about queer insurrection. yuck-ee.

your homobphob

nuh uh it aint mine its yours!

I think this is one of the best things I've read.
Like, not one of the best anarchist texts, but just one of the best texts.
This is some next level, once in a lifetime, peak writing shit.

yeah too bad they stole it.

Just like they stole those dumpstered bagels.

um, this is original to Terror Incognita? they didn't steal it? wtfiyp?

I am Bob Black.
They stole it from me.

-- Bob Black
boboba51@peoplepc.com

I am Bob Black, my book post-left anarchy was so boringly written (even if it did have nuggets of knowledge in it) that it had to be given away for free with orders to Green Anarchy magazine back in the day.

Oh, also, I call the cops on people.

in b4 Vice Magazine buys out Crimethinc

Shut up, get high on Crimethinc.

no im down with both dont get me wrong, hipsters move in oogles move out

Oh cool what city are you in? New York? LA? San Fran?

Probably Atlanta

I love Atlanta though, hit up Cleremont Lounge after drinkin at the Local.

LA? really?

Seriously, theres enough anarcho punks in LA to staff at least 3445 ARA chapters.

>anarcho punks

But they hardly count as real anarchists according to these guys. Someone should tell CrimethInc. ...

Oh they are real, that doesn't mean I would introduce them to my friends.

I am Bob Black.

-- Bob Black
Abobob51@peoplepc.com

Currently between different cities not bay area or pac nw. Am in New York part of the year. My main residence outs me too easily. LETS JUST SAY ITS IN THE WEST.

Well wherever you are FOR GOD SAKE STAY THERE! (That was my endgame on this whole thing.)

But really, hipsters? That's your grand plan to bring down oppression and civilization? Hipsters?

...really?!

...HIPSTERS?!?!?!

nope i just want a girlfriend who has never heard of the band Nausea

If you tell me where you are though I will let you know if I will be swinging through anytime soon though.

AFAICT hipsters are doing a grand job at bringing down civilization.

Going down on civilization is more like it...and swallowing.

thats fucked up of you

more like gargling and swapping, amirite?

The people have spoken.

er...chaos

CAN'T STOP IT!

That would actually be awesome

I suppose the idea is that consent is the character of a relationship, and not an individual decision, a "yes" signal, given by an objecticized person to the demand of someone who seeks to take over and abuse. Only there would it take its meaning.

But in that perspective, most sex-based relationships -even the ones that look sane and nonviolent- are non-consensual, since these are subjected to inherently phallocratic, binary patterns. I've seen tons of cases of feminists trapped in such patterns, sometimes criticizing their men, but in reality it's mostly their relation to them that needs to be criticized, questioned in the facts of daily life.

Why do you still hang out with him, or stay at his place? Why do you travel with him? Why don't you just go on your own, or with other buddies?

The opposite part can also be asked to the male... why you keeping offering these things to her? Why you stick up with her? Couldn't you look at other people, sometimes, or within yourself?

Can apply the same question to artificially gendered same-sex relationships as well.

good points. i was going to comment that it's laughable how the authors airily imply that the existing 'consent' paradigm has actually worked for the world of anarchist sexuality, which as we unfortunately know, is riddled with toxicity, hypocrisy and drama...

no where in the article does it say that consent as a framework has "solved" the problems of assault or power dynamics or rape in anarchist circles. it does characterize the framework as useful in that regard however, and as a great step forward compared to where the discussion often was at earlier.

this article, though, really isnt about sex or sexual assault - its a critique of the concept of consent applied as a general paradigm for organizing and action.

Ill say this again, just to hopefully preempt at least a few of the really dumb things that will probably be said about this article without fully reading it. It specifically says this is not a critique of consent IN THE ABSTRACT, i.e. a complete negation of it as a framework in all circumstances (hence the affirmation of it as a framework for understanding sexual relations) but rather in the ways it gets used to obstruct any kind of revolutionary activity...

IGTT 1/10

advice: use less words next time

that reply is the clearest proof of how Internet 2.0 makes people stupid. Soon we'll have to be debating in one-liners, Twitter way, without even real sentences, just acronyms, words and sometimes, the sassy luxury of one of two verbs. Exactly like in "1984".

Sorry if we can't find a way to make our ideas fit in your squeezed brain.

Expand your mind... there's still plenty of room and time for that on this planet.

I stopped reading after 140 characters. #uselesswords

Someone please summarize this comment.

BS



the future, the future.

NO FUTURE!

That's what I said. If you're going to quote, at least attribute plzthx.

NO ATTRIBUTION!

plz
thx

NO!

but plz?
thx

If you want an image of the future image a hashtag stomping on a human face-- forever.

they were like "you speak internetz!!! is making you stupid!!!" and we were like "yeah so?"

Look at this fucking elitist. I bet you're old.

It is like when usenet was new and all the oldfags were like: "Don't use smileys!" Pathetic. Dinasaurs are more cool.

long live...anarchism

"most sex-based relationships are non-consensual".

I find that a very stupid thing to say. So, "consent" would imply that person A gives consent to person B to perform some action/whatever. Yes? I consent to you kissing me, I consent to you holding my hand. Yes? Well, those are decisions made by me, for me. That's important, for if the decision wasn't made by me it can't be consensual in nature.

Let's say I have a boyfriend. I enjoy him, I'm happy... I consent to that relationship. Now, here are you telling me that my consent in in fact non-consent because of what you believe. So, let me ask you... who are you to tell me when my consensus is valid? Because right here you're coming across as knowing more about my person, my body, my life... wants, desires... than me. Which is kinda fucking elitist.

Furthermore, how can you ever expect person A to speak up, to consent, if people like you are judging them and telling them their consensus isn't valid? Here we go, the problem with some feminists... is that they are imposing their judgement and will upon everyone else, thereby subjugating people to yet another set of dogmatic principles not unlike those they claim to hate...

you aren't getting the point (which is that the larger context makes "consent" impossible/meaningless). nothing to take personally in the original comment.
but you're responding with a valid point of your own (which is that what is the point of using a word if its definition is too arcane to be useful? and also, who defines words?)

interesting.

"the larger context makes "consent" impossible/meaningless" - this sounds like one of those abstract things we philosophical types like to say to sound smart, knowing it has some truth in it.

but then i think about the actual ramifications of what this is saying, and i think, first, basically what that earlier commenter was saying about their consent and relationships being totally invalidated, etc. And then I think, second, "Damn, i sound like fucking andrea dworkin, saying that shit about how consent with men is impossible. That fucking sucks, cus fuck shes a fucking reactionary anti sex worker, anti-sex asshole."

So then i dont say that shit anymore.

it seems to me that one could argue consensual sex with men is impossible without being a reaciontary anti sex worker anti-sex asshole

unless i didn't read carefully enough, you don't say "consent with men", you say "consent". this makes your statement different from dworkin's (although there are echoes, obviously), because i could read it (and did) as consent is impossible for anyone in a rape culture, not just the eternally victimized female figure that dworkin apparently got off on.
however, if you meant to say "consent of women with men", then your statement is in fact fucked up, and we would need to have an entirely different conversation (including an encouragement of you to learn to write more carefully).
let's not do that.

Most of this is right on, but I'm sure as hell not gonna redistribute it until someone translates it out of the painfully academic language. Why write this way?

HEY EVERYONE HERE'S MY DICK!

this is a joke right? this shit is readable as hell. name three terms from the text that you only or primarily see in academic writings. double dog dare ya...
and its put out by a publisher known largely for writing to as large an audience as possible...

A publisher known for eating trash and riding trains at that!

Eating trash is what stupid cops like you DO, because you're paying for baloney food and other GMO trash. Me... I prefer to recycle healthy, fresh food out of the trash bin.

Haha. This hippy eats trash.

I would rather dumpster food than pay for it.

Why dumpster when you can tablescore?

why tablescore when you can dine and dash?

why dine & dash when you can smash & grab?

Why smash & grab when you can eat the rich?

HAHA... consumer slave pays for trash.

I think it may be a joke. I'm usually the one making this critique and it's readable -- enjoyable, even! -- by my puny brains.

Here's the part of the text that first made it obvious to me that it was written by a college student:

"Certainly, this discourse of consent offers a compelling way to imagine the world we want to live in. But how does it serve as a strategy for dislodging this one? It’s difficult to envision a political practice that stringently respects the consent of all people while simultaneously destroying the fabric of our hierarchical society."

Anyone not in college would have said something more like:

"Yeah, this idea of consent is a good way to think about the world we'd like to live in. But how is it a strategy for breaking out of this one? It's hard picture a political practice that really gets everyone's consent and also tears the fabric of our social system."

The exact same sort of translation could be done for the entire text.

So I wouldn't say that it's really the specific words that make it obvious this is an academic's work (even though "discourse" is definitely a glaring one and I could easily name two more). It's really just the whole thing; even using lead ins like "certainly" and "however" reveal it. Someone is trying to sound edumacated; copying the language of papers they've read just as those papers copied the language of other papers read before, it's linguistic inbreeding.

I don't give a fuck what kind of audience CrimethInc. is largely known for trying to reach. If you can't tell that this paper is written by an academic, it can only be because you're used to expecting any long text to be written by and for academics. It's probably true that the large audience you mention also shares that expectation, so they wouldn't be consciously turned off by this paper, but they will still be alienated because it's just not their "discourse." I don't think we should be perpetuating that shit. It's unnecessary. We can get our ideas across much better without it.

Academics, or they just read too damn much?

Yeah, sort of wish we were fucking academics, then at least it would be easier to hold onto housing while we're writing this fucking things
FUCK MY LIFE

howzat for academic language funny guy AAAAUUUUGHH

You seem good at "translating" it and I sure as hell am not going to sit around changing words like "discourse" to "the talk around" or whatever so how about if you want to distribute it you "translate" it or write your own shit that "gets across our ideas".

I don't have time. Finals coming up in a couple weeks.

um...this wasnt written by an academic. and it doesnt read ANYTHING like academic scholarship, at all. and the two "voices" you compared back to back there dont even sound that different; one is just slightly less formal, which isnt less "academic" perse, it would just be bad writing.

id like to also poit that you seem to be saying that the author should have written "fabric of our social system." instead of "the fabric of our hierarchical society." to be "less academic." uh huh.........

If you think "less formal" means "bad writing" then your opinion is instantly invalidated. You must be well-indoctrinated by the academic system.

How good writing is is only known by how well it accompishes its goals. If writing is 1) meant to get a good grade or 2) be published in a journal or 3) impress or persuade elites more generally or 3) meant to continue a system of education-based oppression, then formal writing will be better writing.

But if writing is trying to talk in an honest, unpretentious and equal way to people who aren't or don't want to be caught up in that system, then it's formal writing that will be bad writing.

Of course, seduction that the paper is arguing for is usually actually just the subtle use of existing power structures to create desire, so maybe that's what they're trying to do here: use the education=quality hierarchy that has been created in our society to influence people.

If that's the case, all I can say is it didn't work on me. Seems to have worked well on the rest of you bitches, though.

Oho, you call us bitches! Well done. At least we know how things stand now.

IGTT 11/10

Masterful combination of the anti-intellectual meme and a very non-academic article. Well done.

My favorite part of this is that there were two "3)"s.
My second favorite part is the definition of "good writing" being "how well it accomplishes its goals." Does this mean that all anarchist writing is bad because none of it has accomplished the anarchist goal, or is it that there is no real anarchist writing?

I guess that depends on whether the goal has been to get us to sit around reading it and scratching our chins and saying "yah, hmm, they may be on to something there" or whether you mean good for getting shit done.

So far it hasn't been looking good on the latter. We'll see though, won't we?

DON'T SAY BITCHES, THERE COULD BE BLACK WOMEN PRESENT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ALIENATED FROM OUR MASS-MOVEMENT.

Seriously, fuck you. Ugh. In person, at least I could hit you.

When i said bad writing, i meant the specific "translation" you wrote, which a) didnt even sound that particularly different from the original paragraph, except that it b) was written poorly. you wrote:

"Yeah, this idea of consent is a good way to think about the world we'd like to live in."

The "yeah" makes it sound like a conversation, in an informal voice - this is just poor writing, poor choice of voice, for a relatively philosophical tract about consent and liberalism in political discourse. Im sorry, its just fucking bad writing.

For an example of actual, real "academic" style writing style, where in the authors are not only professors but actually writing strictly for other ivory tower folks, id suggest reading some continental philosophy, or folks like David Hume or Martha Nussbaum from the US. Just peruse that for a few pages, and you ll see what im getting at. THAT is academics writing for academics, and really is in some need of translation - this shit is EASY to read, and pretty direct. Sorry.

And btw dont call people bitches.

i liked your refutation of the anti-intellectual troll until you said dont call people bitches.

sorry, i became an anarchist back in the bygone days of, ya know, feminism, and stuff...

*makes jerking off gesture with right hand and averts eye contact*

feminism = don't say bitches?

lolling.

YOU sound like a academic, I woulda sed homie itsa like ya gonna change the whole fuckin game, turn it on its friggin head an every dude is gonna be behind ya yeah? THATS NOT ACADEMIC!

Good job. This shows how academic people simply aren't able to write a damn READABLE text, that's intelligible outside of their academic circles.

That's what happens when your brain gets formatted, the language becomes all messed up just as the brain is.

I am beginning to think that @news is some sort of elaborate COINTELPRO operation.
worker: who do you work for?

this website would be better with the comments turned off. nothing useful has ever been said here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
50% of comments on @news is Cointelpro, 30% are people trolling BECAUSE they know the comments won't be good anyway, 10% are genuine thoughtful comments that further the discussion, 10% are from platformists.

almost corrrect, but also almost entirely wrong. youre way too paranoid. we trolls are like 90%. the govt just records everything, since COINTELPRO doesnt work so well anonymo-style, since it's about actual people's actual relationships. how is an anon comment going to neutralize the making of the anarchy???

and also the trolls aren't trolling because the comments won't be good anyway. it's to make the govts job harder. lots and lots and lots and lots of noise so they can't even begin to tell what's real. also trolls troll because it's the internet. you new here?

>trolls troll because it's the internet

QED

> we trolls are like 90%

occupy teh internetz! fight back against the 10%!

we are all trolls of the elite caste

"the university’s board of governors can decide by consensus to raise tuition, but what kind of consensus is that without the participation of the students who’ll be paying it?"

Anarchism is totalitarian; you can't speak of Anarchist praxis within a non-Anarchist situation. TLDR: Shitty example is shitty.

thx4the tl;dr
that's the kind of progress @ is all about!

Anyone who uses big words is a salmon-fucking platformist.

What has become of the trolls of ye olde dot org? Bob black flat brimmed hats salmon...oh oh oh Are academics actually ACADEMICS?! Are hipsters actually HIPSTERS?! I've been DYING to know. It's all mexican quaaludes and marley weed around here, you fucking HIPPIES.

The only thing that will release you from your pathetic bourgeois slumber is cocaine knives and a good healthy PROLE STROLL

“we can reconstruct new social relations based on consent: a world in which no one controls anyone else, in which we can determine our own destinies. It makes sense . . . doesn’t it?”

NO! it doesn’t make sense. the terms ‘construct’, ‘determine’ and in fact the whole theme of ‘consent-based’ is a regression to the Fiktional doer-deed worldview that is the problem in the first place.

It is a view in which the world is animated by a collection of programmed robots that proposition one another. Can you imagine how these robots would navigate passage in the crowd-flow that enters into a busy piazza from all points of the compass, exiting to all points of the compass? Humans show their non-robotic abilities to do this all the time, it is not a question of consent or coercion, it is ‘just doing what comes naturally’ the relational dynamics of the habitat we share inclusion in orchestrate our individual and collective behaviour, ... the holes or niches or possibility-spaces open and invite us to move into them. if they didn’t the world would be a parking lot.

our collective assertive actions are, at the same time, the transformation of spatial relations that constitutes the dynamic of habitat that orchestrates our assertive actions [Mach’s principle]. this applies to the universe in general.

do the animals in the forest ‘construct their social relations based on consent?’ NO! this notion of ‘consent’ and ‘coercion’ is analytical backfill associated with the doer-deed worldview, it is not ‘physical reality’.

in the flow of the busy piazza the leader in the dance is the opening of spatial possibility [the web of spatial-relations] which invites/orchestrates assertive action. as we know from such situations, the passageway that looks as if it will open up for us doesn’t always open up as far as we’d like it to. we experience this in sexual engaging as well. the opening of the passage or ‘possibility-space’ that invites and orchestrates our entry is conjugate with our infusing ourselves into it. if it shuts down as we engage with/in it, like a fjord that we hoped would be our ‘northwest passage’ we have to back off and nuzzle into some other prospective channel that may be more ‘accommodating’ in its opening up to our asserting.

this is what we see if we don’t ‘over-intellectualize’ the natural process by re-rendering/re-framing the whole thing by imputing to each person his/her own ‘agenda’. in that over-intellectualized scenario, we have left the natural realm behind and are entering the intellectual realm; ‘i would like to fuck you, do i have your consent?’ ... ‘what’s in it for me?’... ‘i will let you stay in one of the corners in my cave.’.... ‘it’s not your cave.’.

naturally evolving community is not intellectually constructed. the fertile valley orchestrates the settlement of humans and orchestrates their behaviour [they see what grows well there and they emulate nature by re-sowing the ground accordingly]. other people see possibility niches opening for them and they settle and join in. this opens up new possibility space in the gaps in the continually complexifying dynamic which invites in new participants and/or orchestrates the development of new skills and activities.

the doer-deed intellectual models of community are idealized ‘analytical backfill’, they are not ‘how life and community really [physically] unfold.’

the ‘consent’ paradigm lives in this ‘pseudo-world’ of analytical backfill. the natural way is to nuzzle into the fjord and experientially discover if it opens up in our engaging with it. this is a sensitive TWO-SIDED relational engaging before it is an intellectual negotiation. people can make it into an intellectual engaging which turns social relations into a degenerate ‘tit-for-tat propositional economy that is entirely masculine and one-sided [i.e. ‘consent’ implies that ‘propositioning’ is the animating source of the dynamic’].

there is also the view that ‘anarchism’ is the desire for the return to more natural ways, where we don’t want to have to be always driven and directed from intellectual propositions in our head. we can instead respond to the outside-inward orchestrating influence of the web of spatial relations we find ourselves situationally included in. ... ‘the fallen protester clearly needs a medic and that’s a niche opening for me’, ... the tent city needs to be fed, and that’s a niche opening for me. ... the group needs electricity for lights and computers and that’s a niche opening for me, ... the community spirit needs an entertainer, and that’s a niche opening for me.’

what is the difference between the above and social organizations that are proposition based? the difference is that the web-of-spatial relations is AN-ARCHISTICALLY orchestrating the evolution of community. community social relations do not, in nature, derive from a collection of people propositioning one another. that’s just the degenerate case that Western society has come to.

in other words, the ‘consent’ paradigm assumes that the source of a community dynamic arises from people propositioning people. such a society that thinks of itself in those terms is already a degenerate society.

<3

woah weird, seeing this reminded me that i had a dream last night in which i read a whole wall of emile-text and then replied to it.

now it's sort of like it's coming true. except i didnt read it.

tl;dr, eh?

Please write the next Crimethinc article.

YES! THIS! Emile, please start publishing your work as Crime Th Incorporated. OMG, this would get our missives from crazy town ignored more widely and finally kill those lifestylists. Also, visit my website.

um, maybe im a fool getting trolled cus im not evolved enough to read satire in non verbalized text... but emile, you do get that after the sentence which you quote here, the author goes on to criticize this simplistic perspective of consent, the very one youre also reacting to....That, in fact, is the WHOLE thesis of this piece. It is a critique of the consent paradigm. You seem like a pretty smart cookie, so im not sure how you could have missed this...so im asuming this is satire? Otherwise, i think this article trolled YOU.

Critique of the consent paradigm??? The hell you say!!!

I think you need to deconstruct the discourse a little more there, comrad. Try framework 14B on your non-verbalized text decoder ring.

my comment was not ‘satire’. it was to object to the whole ‘problem framing’; i.e. to the ‘straw man’ of ‘consent discourse'. it is a superficial assessment of 'the problem' and therefore, to come up with a plan to fix it has no more value than the value of the assessment of the problem being 'consent discourse'.

the discussion pivots from setting up’ consent discourse’ as a view of what is going on that is not doing the job for us. e.g. the author says;

“So how else might we conceive of our political project, if not through the lens of consent?”

the article then proceeds to discover other ways of ‘inciting desire’ that will bring on social transformation.

the entire ‘problem-framing’ here is doer-deed based. the authors interpret the challenge to be ‘how do we fire up the folks with desire that will bring on the needed transformation’?

this whole ‘story’ hinges on modeling ‘man’ as science does, ... as a ‘machine made of meat’. the only way to make man move in this doer-deed scenario is to light a fire under his ass, to incite desires in him, to seduce him into going against his slave-masters, something that consent based discourse inhibits.

a hundred years ago Mach and Poincaré and others mocked this model. a hundred and twenty years ago Nietzsche mocked this model. they said that in nature, the orchestrating and organizing of dynamics is outside-inward. in other words, it is not necessary to light a fire of desire under everyone’s ass with the aim of getting them to push the cause of transformation in the social dynamic onward and upward. if space can be 'opened up', people will join the play. the outside-inward orchestrating influence as the animating source of dynamics is nature’s way.

firing the individual with desire is the plan here, but the authors hesitate in recalling an undesirable context for desire [e.g. the best examples of inspiring desire are things like Apple's success with iPhones]. in their following statement with its off target reference to buddhist philosophy, they miss the key point, that outside-inward orchestrating influence is innate in nature, call it ‘healing’ or ‘the search for wholeness’ or the coincidentia oppositorum or the ‘union of opposites’, they miss it and stick with their mechanical model of man [as an inside-outward driven and directed thing-in-itself organism] who needs the hard-on of desire to get him pointed in the right direction.

“Wait, there’s nothing liberating about attempting to induce desires in others. That’s the function of the advertising industry, the lever of demand that has driven capitalism over the past century. ... Ought we not be suspicious of a project framed in such transparently manipulative terms? As grim as it looks, this vista reveals that if we are not partisans of certain modes of desiring, we will remain objects rather than subjects within these desiring wars. We cannot retreat into essentialist notions of unearthing our “true” desires from some internal vault, nor a pseudo-Buddhist project of extinguishing desire on an individual level while the world burns. What sets us apart is that we strive to create a world in which every person can realize her unique potential on her own terms, rather than simply pushing for this or that option within the current conditions.”

decolonization initiatives, and ‘occupy’ seems as if it may be one of them, are not about ‘creating a new world’. in the ‘liberated space’ of the occupy zone, community is allowed to happen in a natural way. natural community is not individual desire driven [that idea comes from the machine model of science which sees the individual as an internally driven and directed entity]. capitalists have lots of desire, and politicians have lots of desire, and those climbing the ladders of hierarchy that lead to the seat of obscene power have lots of desire [they want to be the 'Pistons' in the machinery].

but what about the battlefield medic. her actions are not the high-spirited actions of a race-horse that is anxious to get out of the starting gate and do her thing. her animating comes from the 'holes’ or 'deficiencies' that develop that she can help make whole. when a friend or family is experiencing deficiency, we move to help them ‘heal’ or restore them to ‘wholeness’. when the community is missing some service, we step up to the plate even though we don’t yet have the needed skills [we let the outside-inward orchestrating influence pull our potentialities into blossom]. the animative sourcing of these actions comes out of the blue, and we let our behaviour be shaped by it.

‘Corporatism’, the bolting together of authoritarian government and authoritarian business that is euphemistically called ‘Western democracy’, has all but eradicated our ability to let our behaviours be orchestrated in the service of cultivating, restoring and sustaining balance and harmony in community-as-web-of relations. corporatism encourages us to think of ourselves as cogs in a productive machine, human machines-made-of-meat whose behaviours are inside-outward directed by internal knowledge, intellection and purpose/desire. In order to achieve the object of desire [e.g. a raise, a promotion, 'social transformation’] with this over-simplistic mechanical model as a go-by, there are those three knobs that can be played with, and ‘desire’ is the knob that the author has seized upon.

‘consent’ is a filter on the inside-outward asserting ‘desire’ of the machine-men. it is this strawman that the article seeks to bring down that ‘sets up’ in the whole thought process; BUT, if 'consent discourse' is brought down, the machine model of man is certainly not ‘brought down’ with it. instead, the article seeks to identify new ways to ‘stoke the internal fires of desire’ of the machine-men so that the inside-outward asserting power of the people will be amplified sufficiently to bring about transformation of the current system; e.g;

Ultimately, the politics of seduction don’t rely on rational argumentation to influence people. We dive headlong into the terrifying fires of transformation, allowing strange passions to seize us. It’s not that these desires are “ours”; rather, we are theirs. We become lightning rods that crackle with flows of charged desire.

ok, when the goal was ‘revolution’ in the sense of dethroning one ism and crowning a new one, holding the authoritarian machine model constant in the process, ‘strange passions’ were par for the course ['off with their heads' and a general reign of terror etc.]. but in a decolonizing initiative, the approach is to ‘opt out’ of the authoritarian structure so that the ‘controlled space’ can become a ‘free space’ [as in the ‘occupy’ initiatives]. the free space becomes one in which natural community can re-establish naturally, in a manner where outside-inward orchestrating influence from the web of relations is once again shaping development and behaviour.

turning up the knob of ‘desire’, by removing the squelch effect of ‘consent’ and turbocharging desire with the skyhook of seduction preserves the over-simplistic machine-men model of community-building.

‘just say no’ to ‘authoritarian business as usual’ is more to the point. protesting students and striking workers seem to get this. its the corporatism that is getting to them more than the tuition fees and the pay. 'consent discourse' is a distraction.

this might be a bit doer-deedy of a thing to say, but...

I fucking LOVE emile's rants!

shut up emile

what the fuck are you talking about?!

your insistence that the "authors" should write a certain way or say certain things is doer-deed oriented.

I have to try this... or I'll never rest.

Please define these terms. Either use a dictionary definition you find satisfactory, or use the short-hand method of defining that dictionaries employ. (meaning, don't use complete sentences, lengthy paragraphs, or any other additions of unnecessary words required for a *definition* of a term, like a dictionary.)

This task should take no more than a line or two at most per term, and should not result in any other additional writing or elaborate postulations. These terms appear so frequently in your writing that this should be no long or difficult task, especially if you find dictionary definitions sufficient. Easy.

Thanks ahead of time.

Please, define these terms that you often use, SEPARATELY:

1) Science-

2) Evolution-

3) Inward-

4) Outward-

5) Individual-

6) Deed-

I will, as you requested, provide some ‘word definitions’. however, word definitions are insufficient to establish meaning in themselves as in an atom-by-atom construction; i.e. in real life, experiential context has to prevail over word meaning. While this is the normal case in discourse, it is the rule in ‘relational theory’, and it crops up all the time in ‘quantum physics’. This has been described by physicist John Wheeler in terms of ‘the surprise version of the game of twenty questions’. If you are interested in this concept which addresses our cognitive process, see for example; 'Playing Twenty Questions with Nature: Reflections on Quantum Mechanics and Cognitive Systems.' - John Flach et al

You might also see ‘The Art and Thought of Heraclitus’ and the role of ‘intentional ambiguity’ and ‘linguistic resonance’ that is used to convey ideas when the assumption is that we live in a fluid-dynamical world where 'things' are 'ripples in the energy-charged spatial plenum'. see also 'bootstrap theory', another attempt at dealing with the same problem.

the problem being that when ‘things’ are interdependent rather than independent as in a ‘relational space’, our ‘standard average european’ language [as contrasted with Amerindian languages], as Whorf calls it, is not designed to deal with this. Therefore we start off using the word ‘cell’ as in ‘storm cell’ as if it were a ‘thing-in-itself’ and as if it were legitimate to speak of ‘what the cell does’ (the cell as the doer of deeds), but the cell does not ‘really’ own ‘its own behaviour’ or own 'its own development', and its ‘self’ is actually part of the flow it is included in, thus ‘self’ and ‘other’ are connected in a kind of siamese triplets [or more] with shared brain way.

As Flach et al note, we need to understand cognition in a framework that matches our experience, where as they say; “the duality (complementary nature) of control and observation is offered as an alternative to the dichotomy (independent nature) of mind and matter”. In their intro they cite William James who points directly at the problem which Mach, Poincaré and Schrödinger point to in physics; i.e.;

“What must be admitted is that the definite images of traditional psychology form but the very smallest part of our minds as they actually live. The traditional psychology talks like one who should say a river consists of nothing but pailsful, spoonsful, quartpotsful, barrelsful, and other moulded forms of water. Even were the pails and the pots all actually standing in the stream, still between them the free water would continue to flow. It is just this free water of consciousness that psychologists resolutely overlook. Every definite image in the mind is steeped and dyed in the free water that flows round it. With it goes the sense of its relations, near and remote, the dying echo of whence it came to us, the dawning sense of whither it is to lead. The significance, the value, of the image is all in this halo or penumbra that surrounds and escorts it, -- or rather that is fused into one with it and has become bone of its bone and flesh of its flesh; leaving it, it is true, an image of the same thing it was before, but making it an image of that thing newly taken and freshly understood.” --- William James, ‘The Stream of Consciousness’, 1892

This issue of the conjugate relation of figure and ground, inhabitant and habitat, that was a live topic a century ago,... has not ‘gone away’, it has simply been ‘drowned out’ by the institutionalizing of ‘doer-deed world views’ in the capitalist authoritarian system and its sciences and in its media [don't doubt that scientists are political people and that science is 'politicized', and that scientists are always appearing in the media to 'explain for us', 'how the world works' as if they are 'authorities' on the subject! a lot of people fall for this.

So, the point is that we use words as stand-ins for ‘things’ and if we are relational theorists like Mach, or are even discussing relational theory, the ‘thing’ and the ‘space’ it is in, are not ‘independent’ but are instead ‘interdependent’. Mach’s work was the basis for the development of ‘gestalt psychology’ where the assumption is that ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ are not independent. Mach was coming from physics where ‘inhabitant’ and ‘habitat’ are not independent but are in conjugate relation; “The dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.’. You can plug in ‘convection cells’ as ‘figure’/‘inhabitants’ and you can plug in ‘atmospheric flow’ as ‘ground’/ ‘habitat’, to put this ‘relational theory’ into a picture in the mind, which is how the ‘relational theorists’ interpret the meaning of 'matter' and 'space' in relativity and quantum physics and in the general nature of the world dynamic, which is where my writing is ‘coming from’.

DEFINITIONS

i put ‘definitions’ in bold caps so that the reader could jump over my introductory statement of context since that is what people do all the time; i.e. one doesn’t normally include philosophical background context when one is speaking or writing. since we don't articulate our personal foundational assumptions 'upfront' every time we open our mouths, the world of discourse becomes a world of babble, UNLESS the participants let context take precedence over content.

in each and every case, we have two possible definitions, one based on the independence of ‘thing’ and ‘environment’ and another that assumes the interdependence [conjugate relation] of ‘thing’ and ‘environment’. that is why one has to use context to determine if the word ‘science’ is intended as ‘what most people understand ‘science’ as’; i.e. the science that assumes the INDEPENDENCE of habitat and inhabitant, ... or as ‘the science of relational theory’ which assumes the CONJUGATE HABITAT-INHABITANT relation. the same is true of every one of the words you asked for a definition for;

1) Science-

Mach’s definition is;

“Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought. –Ernst Mach [the emphasis is Mach’s].

the (a) common definition is;

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Note that Mach is not saying that science is knowledge ‘of the world’; ... he is saying that science is about knowledge of how to think about and ‘re-present’ the world.

2) Evolution-

the definition of 'evolution' of the relational theorist, such as Mach, Nietzsche, Lamarck et al is;

--- relational transformation in which the ‘thing’ and its ‘environment’ are not independent and where it is not the ‘thing’ that evolves but the ‘things’ in conjugate relation with the environment they share inclusion in [as with the convection cell/s in the flow; i.e. evolution follows Mach’s principle where all are, at the same time, influencing the evolution of all].

Nietzsche’s, Lamarck’s, Rolph’s etc. definition of evolution all incorporated the Machean conjugate relation between ‘thing’ and ‘habitat’, a general principle that governed not just the evolution of the biological organism but the evolution of the inorganic landscape and the world in general. Nietzsche’s views paralleled Rolph’s, as Gregory Moore writes;

“... life seeks primarily to expand itself. This elementary proposition is expressed as a law of assimilation, a law operative in both the organic and inorganic world. Growth, Rolph argues, is determined by a process of diffusion, in which endosmosis predominates over exosmosis. All organic functions, from nutrition and reproduction right up to evolution, can be explained by, and reduced to, this fundamental activity; they are not, as most contemporary biologists assumed, a manifestation of the instinct for self-preservation.” --- Excerpt from Nietzsche, biology, and metaphor By Gregory Moore

our common definition of ‘evolution’ is;

“The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

note that in the common definition, it is the ‘thing-in-itself’ that evolves. in the Machean definition, there are no ‘things-in-themselves’, that is an over-simplification we get from non-Machean ‘science’ wherein we impose an absolute space framing on our observations to ‘get rid of the habitat-inhabitant interdependence. 'evolution, in the Machean view, can only be 'co-evolution' or 'relational transformation'.

3) Inward-

the pattern of the ambiguity in these definitions is probably clear by now. in the relational theorist view, there is no ‘inward’ and ‘outward’ as separate directions. the notion of absolute direction is an artefact arising from our imposing of absolute space reference framing on our observations. in relativity, a relational space such as non-euclidian space is required to avoid the synthetic absolutizing of 'things considered in themselves' as 'things-in-themselves'.

in the common definition of 'inward', inward implies that there is a REAL outside that is mutually exclusive of the ‘inside’. this is the illusion that sovereigntism is based on that is sustained only by the 'belief' in it of the followers of the secularized theological concept of sovereigntism, as historians of law note. capitalist theory of economics is based on derivatives such as ‘imports’ and ‘exports’ that are fully dependent on the secularized theological concept of sovereigntism [which declares an absolute inside and absolute outside to the state].

similarly, the machine model of the organism proclaimed by capitalist science sees the organism, like the sovereign state, as having ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’, once again imposing the notion of mutual exclusion between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ which is not supported by our experience.

for example, because we live in the space on the surface of a sphere, if we dump our toxic wastes over the fence into the wilderness, we are nevertheless toxifying the space we live in, which is a relational space wherein ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are in innate conjugate relation. only if we lived on a flat plane of infinite extent [as in Euclidian space] could we ‘get rid of toxic wastes’ by throwing them ‘outwardly’ over the wall around the perimeter of our 'inside space' into the wilderness; i.e. once we did this, the toxins would have infinitesimal influence on us. similarly, in euclidian space, if we toss garbage off the stern of a boat, we will leave it ‘in the past’ forever without it ever bothering us again, but in non-euclidian space; i.e. the relational space on the surface of a sphere, the garbage that we have 'left behind us in the distance of absolute space and in the past of absolute time, ... will reappear coming towards us over the horizon ‘in the future’. evidently 'behind' and 'ahead' and 'past' and 'future' are enfolded in the continuing present; i.e. the concepts of absolute space and absolute time are, as Mach says, the devices of science in its effort to maximize the presentation of facts while minimizing the amount of thinking we have to do.

in common usage, we accept words like ‘imports’ and ‘exports’ as in trade [Marx called this bullshit since 'free trade' means only a relaxation of the starting point of 'restricted trade']. we also accept, in common usage, the words‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ which are foundational to the model of the organism, but in a relational space such as the space of our experience, all we are really doing is rearranging things. before europe was divided into so many states, the relative location of materials was constantly being 'rearranged' and after we declare the imaginary absolute borders of the states, now we have 'inputs' and 'outputs' and 'material/trade balances' and the like. it is all 'idealization' that may have pragmatic use as in 'pragmatist idealism' but it is not 'physical reality'.

you may say; ‘but an organism really does have ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’, ... but the point is, can we assume that the ‘habitat’ does not change at the very instant that the organism draws something in, and the very instant that the organism discharges something? NO. only if the habitat were infinite while the inhabitant were finite would this be the case. if the habitat itself is finite and unbounded like the space of the biosphere, then the organism/inhabitant and the habitat are in ‘conjugate relation’. they are not two mutually exclusive things in a physical reality sense, only in a linguistic idealized sense.

4) Outward-

covered, by implication, in 3) inward-

5) Individual-

the relational view of an individual assumes that the world is in a continual condition of ‘becoming’ (continually unfolding transformation in terms of continually transforming spatial-relations in the energy-charged spatial plenum), therefore the ‘individuality’ is in terms of a thing’s ‘becoming’ which means that while it is a unique and particular individual, it is unique by way of its unique situational inclusion within the world in flux, and it is thus, nevertheless, in conjugate relation with its habitat in the same manner that a hurricane is in conjugate relation with the flow of the atmosphere and is thus innately included in a web-of-relations with its brother cells [by way of Mach's principle].

meanwhile, the common definition of individual is based on ‘being’ [absolute thing-in-itselfness]. this is ‘idealization’ that tends to be confused for ‘reality’. we speak of the ‘individual nations of the world’ even though this sort of 'individual' depends on nothing other than ‘common belief’. individuality in terms of ‘being’ is not a ‘physical reality’. ask an amerindian if the U.S. and Canada are ‘individual/independent nations’, and he will reply; ‘only in the minds of those nutcase colonizers who also believe that land can be divided up into ‘individual, owned pieces’. If people want to believe in those crazy absolutist thoughts such as ‘discrete individual being’, who's to stop them? the unfortunate thing is that they impose their secularized theological beliefs on everyone else and call that ‘democracy’.

6) Deed-

the common definition of a deed is; ‘Something that is carried out; an act or action’. the theft of a loaf of bread by jean valjean was an ‘illegal deed’. as nietzsche points out, in the commonly used cause-effect model, which is implied in the common definition of ‘deed’, we assume that there is an identifiable ‘author’ of the deed. the notion of the ‘dirty deed’ of the viral pathogen that invades and attacks the body of the poor victim, collapses when one speaks of the deficiency in vitamin C that rendered the body of the victim ideal for the proliferation of the otherwise innocuous virus; i.e. the assertive ‘act’ or ‘action’ of the causal agent is superseded by the inductive accommodating condition of ‘le terrain’ or ‘habitat’. the balloon expanded to ten times its original size, we say. but did the balloon do it? was this an assertive act/deed on the part of the ballon? or did the balloon just sit there sucking its thumb and going with the flow [rising up into the atmosphere] where the changing conditions it was included in were the ‘author’ of the act or action that we attributed to it? as andy warhol suggested, everyone has his fifteen minutes of fame. the changing world is pretty fickle about what it wants to make popular so if you have something wierdo to offer, just stick with it until the changing world starts to dance to it, and people will use the common model of 'individual' and say that 'you made the world dance'. the key is to whether one sees the habitat as a co-animating source of dynamics,... dynamics being 'commonly' defined as the dynamic of individual things or of groups of things.

the Machean or relationist view always leaves open whether the animative sourcing of the deed or act originated from outside-inward or from inside-outward since ‘outside-inward’ and ‘inside-outward’, as already covered, are conjugate aspects of a single dynamic, the transformation of spatial relations. therefore THE AMBIGUITY IN THESE DEFINITIONS IS INNATE.

Conclusion:

the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can articulate what one may conclude from this discussion of ‘definitions’;

“The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its speakers are able to conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view.”--- Wikipedia

and Poincare underscores this with his additional notion that the 'realist' and the 'pragmatist idealist' play the same language game differently; i.e. the realist uses the 'common' definition of all the terms in the above list, while the 'pragmatist idealist', while acknowledging the utility of using those terms, sees what is being taken for 'real' by the 'realist' as 'idealization' that, while performing as a useful 'wittgenstein ladder' role in the idea-sharing discourse, as in no way to be confused for 'physical reality'.

the capitalist, authoritarian society, the colonizer society that is currently globally dominating and which will not let us any of us 'within it' escape from its imposed beliefs, is 'REALIST' in its world view, as described above with its belief in the existence of 'sovereign states' with absolute 'insides' and 'outsides' and therefore its belief in 'exports' and 'imports' etc. furthermore, it has institutionalized 'realism' or 'doer-deedism' in its regulatory agencies, its justice system, its corporate architecture, its notion of 'an economy', its 'banking system' etc. this colonizer culture will always recognize YOU, AND YOU ALONE, as the full and sole author of your own deeds. if your emotional pressure rises to ten times its normal level because of the increasingly oppressive conditions cultivated by the colonizer system, and you explode in a burst of anger and throw a brick through a window or etc., the colonizer culture will assess this behaviour, using the doer-deed model, as fully and solely 'yours', and since it is a 'public disturbance', you will always be at fault and there is no suggestion whatsoever of the state or system that is conditioning the space you are in as having a role in it, because space is not a participant in the 'realist' world view.

If you couldn't do it, why didn't you just say you couldn't do it, and then not bother?

(real question.)

I mean, you even offered a one sentence long quote from WIKIPEDIA to define "definition." This is what I asked be done for each term. Instead, you concisely defined *one thing* how I asked (definition) thus showing that it's possible and acceptable, but then used that as "reason" to *not* just do that for the other terms as asked.

You wrote an essay length with a *conclusion* when asked to only concisely define *SIX FUCKING WORDS.*

Essays include a section with definitions of terms within them so the content within can be understood.

You write enough lengthy comments for anyone who reads them to list several common words therein.

Please, without an essay that ignores methodologically avoiding adding unnecessary amounts of more and more complex terms that require further defining... DEFINE THE TERMS I ASKED ABOUT.

anon - Fri, 2012-04-27 16:11, anon - Fri, 2012-04-27 16:17 and anon - Fri, 2012-04-27 16:23. i am assuming that you are the same person and that your huff and puff cycle period is six minutes.

you are definitely sticking to your assumption that the world should be clearly definable. you are certainly not alone in this. in fact, you are ‘with the majority’.

i am not. i openly acknowledge that. neither was Mach, he openly acknowledged that. he said;

“Glaube an Klarheit ist selbst Metaphysik, Religion.” – Ernst Mach

“The belief in clarity is in itself metaphysics, religion.”

the universe is innately ‘ambiguous’ according to my experience. i don’t know about yours. that is, my experience is that you can never tell whether a ‘result’ is due to the dynamics of the inhabitant or to the dynamics of the habitat. if we apply euclidian space and thus 'thing-in-itselfness to our observations, if the balloon expands, the action has to be attributed to the balloon because space is a non-participant. but in the real world, the dynamics of space/habitat are conjugate to the dynamics of the inhabitant/s'. the conditions of space can be the source of the balloon’s expansion. that’s what a barometer is all about. we say that liquid rises in the column, ... or is it instead the atmosphere ‘backing off’. did he finally catch the girl he was chasing or did she catch him? did the assertive action of the driver in the flow of the freeway open up holes to service his intruding, or did the opening of holes induce his assertive intrusion into the holes? did the tree boughs bending alter the windflow, or did the windflow bend the tree boughs? the ambiguity is innate. that's what the old taoist parable of 'wind and flag' is there for, to remind us of the innate ambiguity in the world we live in. all of the definitions you ask for are subject to this same ambiguity.

you say;

Please, ... \ DEFINE THE TERMS I ASKED ABOUT.

i did define them. perhaps you find my definitions unacceptable. if so, you may be suffering from ‘confirmation bias’, a common flaw in logical inference. you search the incoming data for confirmation of your theory, and if you cannot find confirmation in the data, then there must be something wrong with the dataset. people afflicted with confirmation bias go where they can find datasets that confirm their theory. our colonizer culture is kind of like a confirmation bias cult.

“Glaube an Klarheit ist selbst Metaphysik, Religion.” – Ernst Mach

I don't "believe in clarity." I begin with the same premise you suggest regarding the conceptual frailty of "clearly definable." There is inevitable ambiguity in perception, experience, and therefor/also language.

Dictionary definitions, which typically consist of as few words as possible, include the ambiguity we agree on.

This is why the request was made with parameters of brevity. It was not a mission dependent upon any fallaciously indulgent confirmation bias, it was an experiment to see if your alleged belief in ambiguity would lead to arbitrary detailing beyond that of a few *simple definitions.*

If clarity is unattainable, I can conceive of no reason why you would go to such lengths to "define" words, instead of going to *less lengths* to define them. You add word upon word, and concept upon concept, as if you do not *accept and embrace your own premise.* This, I find, is consistently the case.

My response that you "did not define the words" is correct according to this response of yours because ambiguity of definition is "innate."

"i did define them."

Interesting.

My premise was never the "assumption that the world should be clearly definable," it was that it isn't. You included satisfactory definitions *within* your original responses even given the "innate ambiguity" premises. They were there, you are correct.

I gave parameters, and a few snippets of your content for each word requested would have "defined" the words "as clearly as possible." Certainly you must know this if you (A) accept the ambiguity premise and (B) feel that you satisfactorily "defined" the words.

Your approach evades and betrays your premise, in all of your writing, in an unharmonious and complimentary way, unlike many referable philosophies of similar sentiment which circuit the various paradoxical impasses of experience and communication. To be trite, you even are not allowing an "outside-inward" influence of the conversational environment to influence your defining of 6 words to a palatable brevity.

If the innate ambiguity of the world and the innate ambiguity of definitions habitually necessitates essay length *defining* in spite of that premise itself, I can conceive of no reason why you would continue to speak. In fact, the dependency of the ambiguity premise upon *words* with *standardized definitions* from which you *begin* means your offerings in particular are as useless and/or "with the majority" in how the intent is to incessantly pile ambiguity upon ambiguity to make a point *other than ambiguity.*

Definition is roughly defined by and because of the fact that definitions can only be rough. This is why there are made basic, so as to have foundation enough to speak at all, NOT to have *ultimate foundation* to speak with *complete clarity.* Dictionaries are for definitions of words to write/speak with. Essays have glossaries so the content is as clear as possible given the ambiguity premise. When asked for 6 definitions, hardly a glossary of terms, you provided an essay, complete with "introduction" and a "conclusion". What if you're asked for an essay? Would you include a glossary, or would it too have an introduction and conclusion?

If you accept the ambiguity premise, HOW CAN YOU EVEN WRITE SOMETHING CALLED A "CONCLUSION" WHETHER IN AN IDEA/ESSAY OR IN A REQUEST TO DEFINE 6 WORDS?

If things aren't clearly definable, it suffices to say just that, at all, simply. If things aren't clearly definable, it is fallacious to pile (it's a pile because it has an INTRODUCTION and a CONCLUSION) word upon word and concept upon concept in order to (A) act as if there is a clear definition or to (B) prove that there isn't. Either way, you end up missing the implications of your own alleged premise and worse...

... assuming the reason is that I actually don't agree with the premise, when I do.

"since we don't articulate our personal foundational assumptions 'upfront' every time we open our mouths"

According to your premise/content:

The definition of definion- articulating foundational assumptions upfront

Therefore:

"the world of discourse becomes a world of babble" should read "the world of discourse **IS** babble **EVEN WHEN** the participants let context take precedence over content."

"i did define them."

There were semblances of "definitions" in the post. You're not acknowledging *my context* which is an embarrassing irony for your premise of "UNLESS the participants let context take precedence over content."

Hahaha seriously. You cut out the all caps "DEFINE THE TERMS" but the context of that cut preceding an *ellipsis* was:

"Please, without an essay that ignores methodologically avoiding adding unnecessary amounts of more and more complex terms that require further defining..."

"DEFINE THE TERMS."

Address the context, or you're "babbling."

seriously. How could this long ass sentence:

"emotional pressure rises to ten times its normal level because of the increasingly oppressive conditions cultivated by the colonizer system, and you explode in a burst of anger and throw a brick through a window or etc., the colonizer culture will assess this behaviour, using the doer-deed model, as fully and solely 'yours', and since it is a 'public disturbance', you will always be at fault and there is no suggestion whatsoever of the state or system that is conditioning the space you are in as having a role in it, because space is not a participant in the 'realist' world view."

have any place in a response to a request for 6 word definitions?

Following the implied methodology/reasoning/approach, I can think of no reason nor explanation for why you would ever even bother speaking. Unless due to an uncommon neurosis.

ydkwtfyta, ydkwtfyta

If you had just said this as a response to my request, i seriously would have cheered and said "oh, he got it, gigs up. thank goodness, it *is* a human and not a troll-generator-bot."

i'm 12 and wud is dis?

Mm, Emile-bot is getting pretty advanced.

I'm pining for the fjords now.

I am a high school drop out with no college education, and I am often subjected to accusations of inaccessibly academic writing. I have always been self-motivated and pursuant of broadening my vocabulary, intellect, and understanding through actively studying a variety of subjects based on my interests.

Reading things that were too articulate and "academic" for me to immediately understand with the intention of understanding them simply took patience and dictionaries. I failed almost everything in grade school, but according to college professors I've debated with and many radicals, all that is needed to write or speak "too academically" is a few books (library or stolen), a dictionary, and some spare time.

It's tiresome to consistently run in to notions that I fucked up somehow by self-educating simply because I have acquired the ability to verbosely articulate thoughts (especially as if I should intentionally avoid doing so, and as if I can not also communicate without doing so).

A common response is "why should I dumb down my writings any more than others should actually TRY to learn ways to read and interpret them?" That was never a question for me, I just knew I could raise my level of understanding simply by reading more and thinking critically about what I've read. Is that all "academic" means? Someone suggested above editing this text for appeal to a broader audience so those less interested or able to taking its language to task would be potentially more receptive to the content. This reminded me of the intentions of the contemporary translation of the Christian Bible in to Ebonics which occurred not long ago.

To cut to the chase:

Can anyone here suggest some one or two-liner troll-esque retorts that summarize the challenge that my circumstances entail to the presumptuous and dismissive accusations of "too academic?"

Cus those clowns are wack.

Some preliminary ideas:
"Because poor people can't read.", "Because only academics understand the big words. Fuck off you patronising leftist fuck.", ">probably a liberal arts student who due to their education feels officially qualified to make generalisations about the non-students they look down on >from the perspective of critiquing academism >ahahahahaha... fuck you", "Yeah... Unlike you I actually *am* someone who grew up in poverty and never finished highschool. And I understood all of it. Because I'm not a stereotype. Your charity mindset is unwelcome."
Good luck!

this is exactly what I was looking for. thanks!

Who says anarchist news doesn't deliver? People are just asking the wrong questions.

I'm a college graduate and I used to be often subjected to accusations of inaccessibly academic writing, but then I worked on my shit and found out that I could say the same stuff in much more direct and accessible ways. Ways that encourage understanding and ACTION rather than contemplation and more writing.

Sorry you haven't caught up yet.

Apparently, graduating college aided you, in no significant sense, to be able to absorb and critique what you are reading.

Ability to say things in an accessible way was mentioned in my comment that renders this response negligible at the least, and in need of elaboration which considers the context of how it was addressed within the material you are responding to.

Alternately (choose your own):

(1) I said shit that covers this. Pay attention.

(2) lol cus people can't read and won't act without your precious "accessible writing" that makes you worthy of being "caught up to"

fuck, i read all these pages of comments.

holy shit. emile you fucking rock.

please don't stop. your comments are usually the most interesting things to read on this entire site.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
C
e
h
N
V
q
b
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Breaking with Consensus Reality"
society