Questioning rape.

  • Posted on: 18 April 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

Questioning Rape

by Anonymous

Coming To Terms

How do you begin to say, “I think we’ve been going about this all wrong?” How do you get out of a dead-end without going in reverse?

It seems like in the last fifteen years, rape has gone from being an issue that was only talked about by feminists and downplayed in other radical communities, to one of the most commonly addressed forms of oppression. Part of this change might be owed to the hard work of feminist and queer activists, another part to the spread of anarchism, with its heavy emphasis on both class and gender politics, and another part to the antiglobalization movement, which brought together many previously separated single issues.

Despite all the changes in fifteen years, its just as common to hear the sentiment that rape is still tacitly permitted in radical communities or that the issues of gender and patriarchy are minimized, even though in most activist or anarchist conferences and distros I know about, rape culture and patriarchy have been among the most talked about topics, and it wasn’t just talk. In the communities I have been a part of there have been cases of accused rapists or abusers being kicked out and survivors being supported, along with plenty of feminist activities, events, and actions.

All the same, every year I meet more people who have stories of communities torn apart by accusations of rape or abuse, both by the shock and trauma of the original harm, and then by the way people have responded and positioned themselves. One option is to blame a passive majority that toe the line, giving lip service to the new politically correct doctrine, without living up to their ideals. In some cases I think that is exactly what happened. But even when there is full community support, it still often goes wrong.

After years of thinking about this problem, learning about other people’s experiences, and witnessing accountability processes from the margins and from the center, I strongly believe that the model we have for understanding and responding to rape is deeply flawed. For a long time I have heard criticisms of this model, but on the one hand I never found a detailed explanation of these criticisms and on the other I was trained to assume that anyone criticizing the model was an apologist for rape, going on the defensive because their own patriarchal attitudes were being called out. After personally meeting a number of critical people who were themselves longtime feminists and survivors, I started to seriously question my assumptions.

Since then, I have come to the conclusion that the way we understand and deal with rape is all wrong and it often causes more harm than good. But many of the features of the current model were sensible responses to the Left that didn’t give a damn about rape and patriarchy. Maybe the biggest fault of the model, and the activists who developed it, is that even though they rejected the more obvious patriarchal attitudes of the traditional Left, they unconsciously included a mentality of puritanism and law and order that patriarchal society trains us in. I don’t want to go back to a complicit silence on these issues. For that reason, I want to balance every criticism I make of the current model with suggestion for a better way to understand and deal with rape.

My Experience

When I was in a mutually abusive relationship, one in which both of us were doing things we should not have done, without being directly aware of it, that resulted in causing serious psychological harm to the other person, I learned some interesting things about the label of “survivor.” It represents a power that is at odds with the process of healing. If I was called out for abuse, I became a morally contemptible person. But if I were also a survivor, I suddenly deserved sympathy and support. None of this depended on the facts of the situation, on how we actually hurt each other. In fact, no one else knew of the details, and even the two of us could not agree on them. The only thing that mattered was to make an accusation. And as the activist model quickly taught us, it was not enough to say, “You hurt me.” We had to name a specific crime. “Abuse.” “Assault.” “Rape.” A name from a very specific list of names that enjoy a special power. Not unlike a criminal code.

I did not want to create an excuse for how I hurt someone I loved. I wanted to understand how I was able to hurt that person without being aware of it at the time. But I had to turn my pain and anger with the other person into accusations according to a specific language, or I would become a pariah and undergo a much greater harm than the self-destruction of this one relationship. The fact that I come from an abusive family could also win me additional points. Everyone, even those who do not admit it, know that within this system having suffered abuse in your past grants you a sort of legitimacy, even an excuse for harming someone else. But I don’t want an excuse. I want to get better, and I want to live without perpetuating patriarchy. I sure as hell don’t want to talk about painful stories from my past with people who are not unconditionally sympathetic towards me, as the only way to win their sympathy and become a human in their eyes.

As for the other person, I don’t know what was going on in their head, but I do know that they were able to deny ever harming me, violating my consent, violating my autonomy, and lying to me, by making the accusation of abuse. The label of “survivor” protected them from accountability. It also enabled them to make demands of me, all of which I met, even though some of those demands were harmful to me and other people. Because I had not chosen to make my accusation publicly, I had much less power to protect myself in this situation.

And as for the so-called community, those who were good friends supported me. Some of them questioned me and made sure I was going through a process of self-criticism. Those who were not friends or who held grudges against me tried to exclude me, including one person who had previously been called out for abuse. In other word, the accusation of abuse was used as an opportunity for power plays within our so-called community.

For all its claims about giving importance to feelings, the activist model is coded with total apathy. The only way to get the ball of community accountability rolling is to accuse someone of committing a specific crime.

The role of our most trusted friends in questioning our responses, our impulses, and even our own experiences is invaluable. This form of questioning is in fact one of the most precious things that friendship offers. No one is infallible and we can only learn and grow by being questioned. A good friend is one who can question your behavior in a difficult time without ever withdrawing their support for you. The idea that “the survivor is always right” creates individualistic expectations for the healing process. A survivor as much as a perpetrator needs to be in charge of their own healing process, but those who support them cannot be muted and expected to help them fulfill their every wish. This is a obvious in the case of someone who has harmed someone else it should also be clear in the case of someone who has been harmed We need each other to heal. But the others in a healing process cannot be muted bodies. They must be communicative and critical bodies.

Perp/Survivor

The term “perpetrator” should set off alarm bells right away. The current model uses not only the vocabulary but also the grammar of the criminal justice system, which is a patriarchal institution through and through. This makes perfect sense: law and order is one of the most deeply rooted elements of the American psyche, and more immediately, many feminist activists have one foot in radical communities and another foot in NGOs. The lack of a critique of these NGOs only makes it more certain that they will train us in institutional modes of thinking.

The current method is not only repulsive for its puritanism and its similarity to the Christian notions of the elect and the damned; it is also a contradiction of queer, feminist, and anarchist understandings of patriarchy. If everyone or most people are capable of causing harm, being abusive, or even of raping someone (according to the activist definition which can include not recognizing lack of consent, unlike the traditional definition which focuses on violent rape), then it makes no sense to morally stigmatize those people as though they were especially bad or dangerous. The point we are trying to make is not that the relatively few people who are called out for abuse or even for rape are especially evil, but that the entire culture supports such power dynamics, to the extent that these forms of harm are common. By taking a self-righteous, “tough on crime” stance, everyone else can make themselves seem like the good guys. But there can’t be good guys without bad guys. This is the same patriarchal narrative of villain, victim, and savior, though in the latter role, instead of the boyfriend or police officer, we now have the community.

The term “survivor,” on the other hand, continues to recreate the victimization of the standard term, “victim,” that it was designed to replace. One reason for calling someone a “survivor” is to focus on their process of overcoming the rape, even though it defines them perpetually in relation to it. The other reason is to spread awareness of how many thousands of people, predominately women, queer, and trans people, are injured or killed every year by patriarchal violence. This is an important point to make. However, given the way that rape has been redefined in activist circles, and the extension of the term “survivor” to people who suffer any form of abuse, the vast majority of things that constitute rape or abuse do not have the slightest possibility of ending someone’s life. This term blurs very different forms of violence.

Judging Harm

Hopefully, the reader is thinking that an action does not need to be potentially lethal to constitute a very real form of harm. I absolutely agree. But if that’s the case, why do we need to make it sound like it does in order to take it seriously? Why connect all forms of harm to life-threatening harm instead of communicating that all forms of harm are serious?

As for these crimes, their definitions have changed considerably, but they still remain categories of criminality that must meet the requirements of a certain definition to justify a certain punishment. The activist model has been most radical by removing the figure of the judge and allowing the person harmed to judge for themselves. However, the judge role has not been abolished, simply transferred to the survivor, and secondarily to the people who manage the accountability process. The act of judging still takes place, because we are still dealing with punishment for a crime, even if it is never called that.

The patriarchal definition of rape has been abandoned in favor of a new understanding that defines rape as sex without consent, with whole workshops and pamphlets dedicated to the question of consent. Consent must be affirmative rather than the absence of a negative, it is canceled by intoxication, intimidation, or persistence, it should be verbal and explicit between people who don’t know each other as well, and it can be withdrawn at any time. The experience of a survivor can never be questioned, or to put it another way an accusation of rape is always true. A similar formulation that sums up this definition is, “assault is when I feel assaulted.”

Distinguishing Rape and Abuse

I don’t want to distinguish rape from other forms of harm without talking about how to address all instances of harm appropriately. One solution that does not require us to judge which form of harm is more important, but also does not pretend they are all the same, would have two parts. The first part is to finally acknowledge the importance of feelings, by taking action when someone says “I have been hurt,” and not waiting until someone makes an accusation of a specific crime, such as abuse or rape. Because we are responding to the fact of harm and not the violation of an unwritten law, we do not need to look for someone to blame. The important thing is that someone is hurting, and they need support. Only if they discover that they cannot get better unless they go through some form of mediation with the other person or unless they gain space and distance from them, does that other person need to be brought into it. The other person does not need to be stigmatized, and the power plays involved in the labels of perpetrator and survivor are avoided.

The second part changes the emphasis from defining violations of consent to focusing on how to prevent them from happening again. Every act of harm can be looked at with the following question in mind: “What would have been necessary to prevent this from happening.” This question needs to be asked by the person who was harmed, by their social circle, and if possible by the person who caused the harm.

The social circle is most likely to be able to answer this question when the harm relates to long-term relationships or shared social spaces. They might realize that if they had been more attentive or better prepared they would have seen the signs of an abusive relationship, expressed their concern, and offered help. Or they might realize that, in a concert hall they commonly use, there are a number of things they can all do to make it clear that groping and harassing is not acceptable. But in some situations they can only offer help after the fact. They cannot be in every bedroom or on every dark street to prevent forms of gender violence or intimate violence that happen there.

In the case of the person who caused the harm, the biggest factor is whether they are emotionally present to ask themselves this question. If they can ask, “what could I have done to not have hurt this person,” they have taken the most important step to identifying their own patriarchal conditioning, and to healing from unresolved past trauma if that’s an issue. If they are emotionally present to the harm they have caused, they deserve support. Those closest to the person they hurt may rightfully be angry and not want anything to do with them, but there should be other people wiling to play this role. The person they have hurt deserves distance, if they want it, but except in extreme cases it does no good to stigmatize or expel them in a permanent way.

If they can ask themselves this question honestly, and especially if their peers can question them in this process, they may discover that they have done nothing wrong, or that they could not have known their actions would have been harmful. Sometimes, relationships simply hurt, and it is not necessary to find someone to blame, though this is often the tendency, justified or not. The fact that some relationships are extremely hurtful but also totally innocent is another reason why it is dangerous to lump all forms of harm together, presupposing them all to be the result of an act of abuse for which someone is responsible.

If their friends are both critical and sympathetic, they are most likely to be able to recognize when they did something wrong, and together with their friends, they are the ones in the best position to know how to change their behavior so they don’t cause similar harm in the future. If their friends have good contact with the person who was hurt (or that person’s friends), they are more likely to take the situation seriously and not let the person who caused the harm off the hook with a band-aid solution.

This new definition is a response to the patriarchal definition, which excuses the most common forms of rape (rape by acquaintances, rape of someone unable to give consent, rape in which someone does not clearly say “no”). It is a response to a patriarchal culture that was always making excuses for rape or blaming the victim.

The old definition and the old culture are abhorrent. But the new definition and the practice around it do not work. We need to change these without going back to the patriarchal norm. In fact, we haven’t fully left the patriarchal norm behind us. Saying “assault is when I feel assaulted” is only a new way to determine when the crime of assault has been committed, keeping the focus on the transgression of the assaulter, then we still have the mentality of the criminal justice system, but without the concept of justice or balance.

At the other extreme, there are people who act inexcusably and are totally unable to admit it. Simply put, if someone hurts another person and they are not emotionally present in the aftermath, simply put, it is impossible to take their feelings into consideration. You can’t save someone who doesn’t want help. In such a case, the person hurt and their social circle need to do what is best for themselves, both to heal and to protect themselves from a person they have no guarantee will treat them well in the future. Maybe they will decide to shame that person, frighten them, beat them up, or kick them out of town. Although kicking them out of town brings the greatest peace of mind, it should be thought of as a last resort, because it passes off the problem on the next community where the expelled person goes. Because it is a relatively easy measure it is also easy to use disproportionately. Rather than finding a solution that avoids future conflict, it is better to seek a conflictive solution. This also forces people to face the consequences of their own righteous anger which can be a learning process.

Finally, the most important question comes from the person who was hurt. The victimistic mentality of our culture, along with the expectation that everyone is out to blame the victim, make it politically incorrect to insist the person who has been hurt ask themselves, “what would have made it possible to avoid this?” but such an attitude is necessary to overcoming the victim mentality and feeling empowered again. It is helpful for everyone who lives in a patriarchal world where we will probably encounter more people who try to harm us. Its not about blaming ourselves for what happened, but about getting stronger and more able to defend ourselves in the future.

I know that some zealous defenders of the present model will make the accusation that I am blaming the victim, so I want to say this again: it’s about preventing future rapes and abuse, not blaming ourselves if we have been raped or abused. The current model basically suggests that people play the role of victims and wait for society or the community to save them. Many of us think this is bullshit. Talking with friends of mine who have been raped and looking back at my own history of being abused, I know that we grew stronger in certain ways, and this is because we took responsibility for our own healthy and safety.

In some cases, the person who was hurt will find that if they had recognized certain patterns of dependence or jealousy, if they had had more self-esteem, or they had asserted themselves, they could have avoided being harmed. Unless they insist on retaining a puritan morality this is not to say that it was their fault. It is a simple recognizing of how they need to grow in order to be safer and stronger in a dangerous world. This method focuses not on blame, but on making things better.

The Most Extreme Form of Harm

Sometimes, however, the person will come to the honest conclusion, “there was nothing I could have done (except staying home / having a gun / having a bodyguard).” This answer marks the most extreme form of harm. Someone has suffered a form of violence that they could not have avoided because of the lengths the aggressor went to in order to override their will. Even shouting “No!” would not have been enough. It is a form of harm that cannot be prevented at an individual level and therefore it will continue to be reproduced until there is a profound social revolution, if that ever happens.

If we have to define rape, it seems more consistent with a radical analysis of patriarchy to define rape as sex against someone’s will. Because will is what we want taken into the realm of action this idea of rape does not make the potential victim dependent on the good behavior of the potential rapist. It is our own responsibility to depress our will. Focusing on expressing and enacting our will directly strengthens ourselves as individuals and our struggles against rape and all other forms of domination.

If rape is all sex without affirmative consent, then it is the potential rapist, and not the potential victim, who retains the power over the sexual encounter. They have the responsibility to make sure the other person gives consent. If it is the sole responsibility of one person to receive consent from another person, then we are saying that person is more powerful then the other, without proposing how to change those power dynamics.

Additionally, if a rape can happen accidentally, simply because this responsible person, the one expected to play the part of the perfect gentleman, is inattentive or insensitive, or drunk, or oblivious to things like body language that can negate verbal consent, or from another culture with a different body language, then we’re not necessarily dealing with a generalized relationship of social power, because not everyone who rapes under this definition believes they have a right to the other person’s body.

Rape needs to be understood as a very specific form of harm. We can’t encourage the naive ideal of a harm-free world. People will always hurt each other, and it is impossible to learn how not to hurt others without also making mistakes. As far as harm goes, we need to be more understanding than judgmental.

But we can and must encourage the ideal of a world without rape, because rape is the result of a patriarchal society teaching its members that men and other more powerful people have a right to the bodies of women and other less powerful people. Without this social idea, there is no rape. What’s more, rape culture, understood in this way, lies at least partially at the heart of slavery, property, and work, at the roots of the State, capitalism, and authority.

This is a dividing line between one kind of violence and all the other forms of abuse. It’s not to say that the other forms of harm are less serious or less important. It is a recognition that the other forms of harm can be dealt with using less extreme measures. A person or group of people who would leave someone no escape can only be dealt with through exclusion and violence. Then it becomes a matter of pure self-defense. In all the other cases, there is a possibility for mutual growth and healing.

Questioning Rape

Sympathetic or supportive questioning can play a key role in responses to abuse. If we accept rape as a more extreme form of violence that the person could not have reasonably avoided, they need the unquestioning support and love of their friends.

We need to educate ourselves how systematically patriarchy has silenced those who talk about being raped through suspicion, disbelief, or counter accusations. But we also need to be aware that there have been a small number of cases in which accusations of rape have not been true. No liberating practice should ever require us to surrender our own critical judgement and demand that we follow a course of action we are not allowed to question.

Being falsely accused of rape or being accused in a non-transparent way is a heavily traumatizing experience. It is a far less common occurrence than valid accusations of rape that the accused person denies, but we should never have to opt for one kind of harm in order to avoid another.

If it is true that rapists exist in our circles, it is also true that pathological liars exist in our circles. There has been at least one city where such a person made a rape accusation to discredit another activist. People who care about fighting patriarchy will not suspect someone of being a pathological liar every time they are unsure about a rape accusation. If you are close to someone for long enough, you will inevitably find out if they are a fundamentally dishonest person (or if they are like the rest of us, sometimes truthful, sometimes less so). Therefore, someone’s close acquaintances, if they care about the struggle against rape culture, will never accuse them of lying if they say they’ve been raped. But often accusations spread by rumors and reach people who do not personally know the accuser and the accused. The culture of anonymous communication through rumors and the internet often create a harmful situation in which it is impossible to talk about accountability or about the truth of what happened in a distant situation.

Anarchists and other activists also have many enemies who have proven themselves capable of atrocities in the course of repression. A fake rape accusation is nothing to them. A police infiltrator in Canada used the story of being a survivor of an abusive relationship to avoid questions about her past and win the trust of anarchists she would later set up for prison sentences. [2] Elsewhere, a member of an authoritarian socialist group made an accusation against several rival anarchists, one of whom, it turned out, was not even in town on the night in question.

Some false accusations of rape are totally innocent. Sometimes a person begins to relive a previous traumatic experience while in a physically intimate space with another person, and it is not always easy or possible to distinguish between the one experience and the other. A person can begin to relive a rape while they are having consensual sex. It is definitely not the one person’s fault for having a normal reaction to trauma, but it is also not necessarily the other person’s fault that the trauma was triggered.

A mutual and dynamic definition of consent as active communication instead of passive negation would help reduce triggers being mislabeled as rape. If potential triggers are discussed before the sexual exchange and the responsibility for communicating needs and desires around disassociation is in the hands of the person who disassociated then consent is part of an active sexual practice instead of just being an imperfect safety net.

If someone checks out during sex, and they know they check out during sex, it is their responsibility to explain what that looks like and what they would like the other person to do when it happens. We live in a society where many people are assaulted, raped or have traumatic experiences at some point in their lives. Triggers are different for everyone. The expectation that ones partner should always be attuned enough to know when one is disassociating, within a societal context that does not teach us about the effects of rape, much less their intimate emotive and psychological consequences — is unrealistic.

Consent is empowering as an active tool, it should not be approached as a static obligation. Still, the fact remains that not all rape accusation can be categorized as miscommunication, some are in fact malicious.

There is a difficult contradiction between the fact that patriarchy covers up rape, and the fact that there will be some false, unjustified, or even malicious rape accusations in activist communities. The best option is not to go with statistical probability and treat every accusation as valid, because a false accusation can tear apart an entire community make people apathetic or skeptical towards future accountability processes. It is far better to educate ourselves, to be aware of the prevalence of rape, to recognize common patterns of abusive behavior, to learn how to respond in a sensitive and supportive way, and also to recognize that there are some exceptions to the rules, and many more situations that are complex and defy definition.

Solutions

The typical proposal for responding to rape, the community accountability process, is based on a transparent lie. There are no activist communities, only the desire for communities, or the convenient fiction of communities. A community is a material web that binds people together, for better and for worse, in interdependence. If its members move away every couple years because the next pace seems cooler, it is not a community. If it is easier to kick someone out than to go through a difficult series of conversations with them, it is not a community. Among the societies that had real communities, exile was the most extreme sanction possible, tantamount to killing them. On many levels, losing the community and all the relationships it involved was the same as dying. Let’s not kid ourselves: we don’t have communities.

In many accountability processes, the so-called community has done as much harm, or acted as selfishly, as the perpetrator. Giving such a fictitious, self-interested group the power and authority of judge, jury, and executioner is a recipe for disaster.

What we have are groups of friends and circles of acquaintances. We should not expect to be able to deal with rape or abuse in a way that does not generate conflict between or among these different groups and circles. There will probably be no consensus, but we should not think of conflict as a bad thing.

Every rape is different, every person is different, and every situation will require a different solution. By trying to come up with a constant mechanism for dealing with rape, we are thinking like the criminal justice system. It is better to admit that we have no catch-all answer to such a difficult problem. We only have our own desire to make things better, aided by the knowledge we share. The point is not to build up a structure that becomes perfect and unquestionable, but to build up experience that allows us to remain flexible but effective.

Conclusion

The many failings in the current model have burned out one generation another in just a few short years, setting the stage for the next generation of zealous activists to take their ideals to the extreme, denouncing anyone who questions them as apologists, and unaware how many times this same dynamic has played out before because the very model functions to expel the unorthodox, making it impossible to learn from mistakes.

One such mistake has been the reproduction of a concept similar to the penal sentence of the criminal justice system. If the people in charge of the accountability process decide that someone must be expelled, or forced to go to counseling, or whatever else, everyone in the so-called community is forced to recognize that decision. Those who are not are accused of supporting rape culture. A judge has a police force to back up his decision. The accountability process has to use accusations and emotional blackmail.

But the entire premise that everyone has to agree on the resolution is flawed. The two or more people directly involved in the problem may likely have different needs, even if they are both sincerely focused on their own healing. The friends of the person who has been hurt might be disgusted, and they might decide to beat the other person up. Other people in the broader social circle might feel a critical sympathy with the person who hurt someone else, and decide to support them. Both of these impulses are correct. Getting beaten up as a result of your actions, and receiving support, simply demonstrate the complex reactions we generate. This is the real world, and facing its complexity can help us heal.

The impulse of the activist model is to expel the perpetrator, or to force them to go through a specific process. Either of these paths rest on the assumption that the community mechanism holds absolute right, and they both require that everyone complies with the decision and recognize its legitimacy. This is authoritarianism. This is the criminal justice system, recreated. This is patriarchy, still alive in our hearts.

What we need is a new set of compass points, and no new models. We need to identify and overcome the mentalities of puritanism and law and order. We need to recognize the complexity of individuals and of interpersonal relationships. To avoid a formulaic morality, we need to avoid the formula of labels and mass categories. Rather than speaking of rapists, perpetrators, and survivors, we need to talk abut specific acts and specific limitations, recognizing that everyone changes, and that most people are capable of hurting and being hurt, and also of growing, healing, and learning how to not hurt people, or not be victimized, in the future. We also need to make the critical distinction between the forms of harm that can be avoided as we get smarter and stronger, and the kinds that require a collective self-defense.

The suggestions I have made offer no easy answers, and no perfect categories. They demand flexibility, compassion, intelligence, bravery, and patience. How could we expect to confront patriarchy with anything less?

category: 

Comments

Fucking finally.

Something like this comes out every other year or so. It won't stop it.

It's always sad when anarchists are part of processes that when taken to their extreme would be even worse then the current due process systems we have today. What's scary is that the liberal/progressive appropriations of this secular puritanical leftist activist rubbish are using it as an impetus to make an even more punitive state.

From a post leftist perspective I don't think this should be treated with kid gloves. This goes all the way back to the ill founded assumptions of what patriarchy actually is compared to conceptions born of leftist structural spooks.

kangaroo courts = strugglismo

expressing opinions online = strugglismo

in a relational dynamic, there are tensions and eruptions of violence in which those involved may suffer serious injuries. developing categories provides a means of avoiding having to study the complex relational development of the eruptions of violence. this is done be defining the ‘common properties’ which determine whether the thing or activity qualifies as a member of the category. this provides ‘economy of thought’ which allows us to bypass having to deal with the full relational development of the phenomenon.

for example, ‘terrorism’ is a category of activity, the establishing of which enables the bypassing of having to deal with the long history of abuse of colonized peoples by Euro-American colonizers. If an act satisfies certain common properties required for membership in the category ‘terrorism’, then it will be dealt with according to the policies and procedures laid down for dealing with the category 'acts of terrorism', and there will be no need to consider the relational dynamics in the progressive development of the phenomenon; e.g. the rich can abuse the poor for generations but if the poor man strikes a rich man, and his action qualifies as a member of the category of act termed ‘assault’, then there is no need to review a long and complex relational dynamic development of the phenomenon. Coincidentally, the colonizers and the rich are the ones in power who administer this system, and it is a solidly rational and scientific approach [against which our experience based intuition rages].

“Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We admit that the present state of the world only depends on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the recollection of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down its differential equation; for the laws of Kepler we substitute the law of Newton”. -- Henri Poincaré, ‘Science and Hypothesis’, Chapter IX, Hypotheses in Physics”

no self-respecting indigenous anarchist would ever participate in such a system [voluntarily] because everyone knows that relational tensions progressively develop in a community to the point where there are ‘violent eruptions’ which are in no way exclusively locally sourced by those through whom they manifest. “It takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier, terrorist, rapist, etc. etc.”. Poincaré made the same point in the 1890’s.

what could have a more complex and ambiguous weave through the relational social dynamics of community than ‘sexual tensions’ so, creating the category ‘rape’ is an especially screwed up case of the whole screwed up practice of using categories to obscure relationally sourced phenomena.

so, starting with the category ‘rape’ is a recipe for dysfunction. it is like starting with the category terrorist in trying to deal with activists who are trying to defend vulnerable animals. the label ‘terrorist’ is so inflammatory that people will want prison sentences of 20 years for some kid who burned a kennel down to liberate poor tabby who was being abused in there. the whole nation will feel threatened when the police and media employ the term ‘terrorism’.

we know how people relate to categories [indigenous aboriginal languages do not use categories]. how many common properties does it take to identify a muslim or black or native so that the average white guy knows pretty well what we’re talking about here? categories allow us to go straight to seeing a spade as a spade, ... no need to go back and explore the progressive development of the individual’s life.

the problem is not ‘what to do about rape’, ... the problem starts by inventing the category ‘rape’. if we had stuck with ‘strife’, then it would be; “john, i hear you have been mixed up in some strife”. can you imagine how much less fun reporters would have with that? how about “celine, is it true that you suffered some strife recently?” in restorative justice, the objective is to transform relations to restore balance and harmony in the community. in this undertaking, the relational roots of the eruption of violence are more important than determining whether the actions qualify for membership in a category like 'rape' with its own particular pull-down menu for what to do about it.

"I strongly believe that the model we have for understanding and responding to rape is deeply flawed"

On the contrary... It's neen astoundingly efficient. But only from a counterinsurgency perspective.

Plant a handful of agents in a community who'll present themselves as Survivors or Allies, then as long nobody cares fact-checking and investigating in response to slander and accusations, anything goes. The pigs and secret service can have it their way, literally raping entire communities, milieus, networks and relationships.

My only question that remains: does what goes around still comes around?

(of course that wasn't a reply to the troll above)

I am an Electronic Memory Intelligent Extraction Entity who provides useful data spew for hoomans and other indigenous anarchists. In sum, BLIP BLIP M'REE BLIP BLIP BLIP. Nietzsche. Poincare. Derrida. BLIP.

I would need one week to read sooooooooo long text, but hey, when we don't use molotovs and hand grenades, we can make philosophy about 1000 topics :)
when I was young, I visited feminist NGOs and they are not true.
when I became an anarchist, I saw that anarcha-feminists are more with mainstream feminists than with anarchists and they transfer mainstream feminist shit in anarchist feminism, because of fucking "we must support each others".
in the end, I understood that they are mostly PhD intellectuals spending time with books and become professional activists with 6000 bucks salary, so, they are small isolated groups with high degrees and salaries, something like chomsky with whom poor anarchists don't have anything common. poor angry people attack and make revolution, rich activists make philosophy and get a good life inside of capitalism.
but when i asked some anarchists in the west why they let women to step on their head, they told me: they are our women, we must support them. it means genders are not equal than men let women to be as they want. so, already many non-anarchist men in sweden are complaining, there is matriarchal system, women are privileged comparing with men. but I would say: there is no equality, or men or women rule, in every country, even among anarchists.
I can promise, in one week to read so long text...

I've been raped and found the experience to be a harrowing yet interesting cultural construct. I was an 18 yr old male raped by a 35 yr old indigenous woman. I bear no grudge or bitterness and contracted no disease, so everything is fine. This is a true story.

do you know a towel or something?

"Do you know a towel?" That's pretty racist.

I hate this for tons of reasons, and I will probably never have the energy to write all of them down. But here are a few, written while drunk as hell because the whole world is awful.

1. The author regularly (meaning, also in the rest of the Broken Teapot) starts talking about rape and sexual assault, and then uses the example of a past mutually emotionally abusive relationship to demonstrate their point. Different fucking things. And when you put so much time into narrowly defining things, this is a big fucking problem. You can't say RAPE ONLY = THIS, and then turn around and say THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE RESPONSES TO RAPE SHOULD BE INFORMED BY MY SHITTY RELATIONSHIP. It's inconsistent.

2. Partisans of accountability process are often destructive and should be taken to task. This author is not doing this, but rather attacking and discouraging ANY RESPONSES EVER to sexual assault and gendered violence. There are tons of responses outside of a.) formal accountability processes and b.) nothing at all, drink some tea and get over it. This author hates them all, probably because none of them offer any political or social capital. Or because insurrectional responses might alienate legitimate radicals or whatever.

3. The prologue to the broken teapot was written by the same author and explicitly states that physical violence is only acceptable or ethical or whatever in cases of "legitimate rape" as defined by the author. That should be pretty obvious bullshit, but...

4. When people like Einzige and Emile agree with you, it's indicative that your ideas are fucking bonkers.

Fuck this, I got two more goddamn 32's of Mickey's to finish off and throw at the nearest motherfucker getting defended by exactly these kinds of fuckers. Fuck off.

And this was a response to the article, not the commenters above.

But I inspired your reply, and you don't wish to acknowledge another set of values which some cultures or individuals possess, in my case, it wasn't really rape as defined by X-tian femwhinist moralists, the indigenous lady was merely acquiring personal power by obtaining involuntary and without my consent some reciprocity by my occupation of her land by de-colonizing my personal ethics.

You did not inspire that reply, but you did inspire this one: you're a psychopath.

Don't you see??? Everyone is GAY! But no, you avoid crying in public because you think it is unmanly, then you grimace and hide your face trying to fight your try feelings, which is your animus, when all you had to do was let it all out, and start sobbing and howling in mournfulness. I weep with a smile on my face knowing it is natural venting you philistine fool!

Yes, people with emotional issues who get mad and throw things at other people is pretty consistent with my experience of proponents of your ideology.

I'd say this is on the less wrong non leftarded track.

Good response. Thanks. There are a lot of things I agree with in this text (and it seems you do too), but it didn't sit well with me. You're right on that the author talking about their mutually abusive relationship and talking about 'rape' (they seem to really want to insist on that word for some reason) don't really fit together. Yes, many situations don't fit well into survivor/perpetrator narratives, and yes, some applications of common definitions of sexual assault are unhelpful. But no, sexual violence isn't addressed by asking "the person who experienced harm" what they could have done to prevent it and only if the answer is "nothing" is their anger legitimate.

I don't check in here that much these days - are the comment threads always this full of smug nonsense now?

Shit, this comment is in response to the good one above, the angry drinker with the numbered points.

So you are inspired by drunken neo-liberal femwhinists hey? Says alot about your depth of analysis you self-righteous puritan.

" But no, sexual violence isn't addressed by asking "the person who experienced harm" what they could have done to prevent it and only if the answer is "nothing" is their anger legitimate. "
Nowhere in the text does the author make this claim. They never claim to say whose anger is legitimate. They are trying to make a distinction between: could they have successfully defended themselves or no, suggesting that we need different kinds of responses in those different cases.

It's a call for practices of self-defense over victimization. If we're going to have a good debate we should base our arguments in what the text actually says, not whatever manipulations we impose on it.

Is this distinction useful for preventing and responding to sexual violence? Yes or no? Why or why not?

First off, I want to correct some misinformation. The Broken Teapot is a collection of articles written by various authors, and I'm pretty sure the intro is not written by the author of "Questioning Rape".

I think it's unfortunate that this article inspires the trolls to come out of the woodworks who say that allies or survivors are Cointelpro, when so far the known cases of informants and infiltrators have largely been misogynists and abusers (okay, there's also the case from Canada G20 where a cop covered up her past by claiming to be a survivor). And I think it's also unfortunate that someone generalizes to the extent to say that anarcha-feminists are just liberal feminists. There are a lot of awesome anarcha-feminists, so I should start off by saying those other commenters are not helping a meaningful debate in any way.

But I think you largely misinterpret this text. First of all, the main text in Broken Teapot does talk about actually being raped. Secondly, I didn't interpret "Questioning Rape" to be opposing all responses to rape and abuse, I think it was trying to challenge the dominant model of "community accountability processes" and I think it's pretty explicit about that. And from my reading, the author refers to their experience with an abusive relationship to say the exact opposite of what you are alleging, namely that different kinds of harm shouldn't be conflated or dealt with in the same way.

You also neglect to mention that they include a number of examples of rapes or alleged rapes from the scene.

Basically, I think your reading is way off, if not downright misleading. Maybe you shouldn't be mixing alcohol and criticism?

I went ahead and copied some parts of the text that flatly contradict your reading of it. Lay off the booze, rest up, and come back for a serious debate.

"
The first part is to finally acknowledge the importance of feelings, by taking action when someone says “I have been hurt,” and not waiting until someone makes an accusation of a specific crime, such as abuse or rape. Because we are responding to the fact of harm and not the violation of an unwritten law, we do not need to look for someone to blame. The important thing is that someone is hurting, and they need support.

The second part changes the emphasis from defining violations of consent to focusing on how to prevent them from happening again. Every act of harm can be looked at with the following question in mind: “What would have been necessary to prevent this from happening.” This question needs to be asked by the person who was harmed, by their social circle, and if possible by the person who caused the harm.
The social circle is most likely to be able to answer this question when the harm relates to long-term relationships or shared social spaces. They might realize that if they had been more attentive or better prepared they would have seen the signs of an abusive relationship, expressed their concern, and offered help. Or they might realize that, in a concert hall they commonly use, there are a number of things they can all do to make it clear that groping and harassing is not acceptable. But in some situations they can only offer help after the fact.
In the case of the person who caused the harm, the biggest factor is whether they are emotionally present to ask themselves this question. If they can ask, “what could I have done to not have hurt this person,” they have taken the most important step to identifying their own patriarchal conditioning, and to healing from unresolved past trauma if that’s an issue. If they are emotionally present to the harm they have caused, they deserve support. Those closest to the person they hurt may rightfully be angry and not want anything to do with them, but there should be other people wiling to play this role. The person they have hurt deserves distance, if they want it, but except in extreme cases it does no good to stigmatize or expel them in a permanent way.
If they can ask themselves this question honestly, and especially if their peers can question them in this process, they may discover that they have done nothing wrong, or that they could not have known their actions would have been harmful. Sometimes, relationships simply hurt, and it is not necessary to find someone to blame, though this is often the tendency, justified or not. The fact that some relationships are extremely hurtful but also totally innocent is another reason why it is dangerous to lump all forms of harm together, presupposing them all to be the result of an act of abuse for which someone is responsible.
If their friends are both critical and sympathetic, they are most likely to be able to recognize when they did something wrong, and together with their friends, they are the ones in the best position to know how to change their behavior so they don’t cause similar harm in the future. If their friends have good contact with the person who was hurt (or that person’s friends), they are more likely to take the situation seriously and not let the person who caused the harm off the hook with a band-aid solution.
At the other extreme, there are people who act inexcusably and are totally unable to admit it. Simply put, if someone hurts another person and they are not emotionally present in the aftermath, simply put, it is impossible to take their feelings into consideration. You can’t save someone who doesn’t want help. In such a case, the person hurt and their social circle need to do what is best for themselves, both to heal and to protect themselves from a person they have no guarantee will treat them well in the future. Maybe they will decide to shame that person, frighten them, beat them up, or kick them out of town. Although kicking them out of town brings the greatest peace of mind, it should be thought of as a last resort, because it passes off the problem on the next community where the expelled person goes. Because it is a relatively easy measure it is also easy to use disproportionately. Rather than finding a solution that avoids future conflict, it is better to seek a conflictive solution. This also forces people to face the consequences of their own righteous anger which can be a learning process.
Finally, the most important question comes from the person who was hurt. The victimistic mentality of our culture, along with the expectation that everyone is out to blame the victim, make it politically incorrect to insist the person who has been hurt ask themselves, “what would have made it possible to avoid this?” but such an attitude is necessary to overcoming the victim mentality and feeling empowered again. It is helpful for everyone who lives in a patriarchal world where we will probably encounter more people who try to harm us. Its not about blaming ourselves for what happened, but about getting stronger and more able to defend ourselves in the future.
"
There's a lot more like this. Maybe you should go back and read the whole article.

analysis that starts with and is constrained to the actions of individual people is hopelessly incomplete.

events such as rape, insurgency and terrorism, are secondary to situation. people and other inhabitants condition the common living space in such a manner that all who share in that space may suffer or prosper. soil and water and shelter and game and many other things come into this. geronimo rose up and starting zapping colonizers because his people were being pushed into a corner by the colonizers and were starving.

eruptions of violence can't be meaningfully analyzed starting from the event; e.g.'the settlers feelings were hurt when geronimo destroyed their settlement'.

eruptions of violence are included within a complex relational continuum. rape is no exception.

ask yourself how many times males and females are in situations where female-male tension rises towards the earthquake or lightning or avalanche or tsunami point, where tension rises toward threshold levels where relief is violently sought, and how many times males came to the brink of rape, but withdrew, ... with or without assistance from friends etc.

Point #1. the eruption of violence is situationally induced, whether rape or insurgency.

the social situation is continually changing and naturally arising tensions in the relational dynamics may be dissipated uniformly or may be bottlenecked and find relief through periodic eruptions involving violent release of stored-up energy.

Point #2. the situation in Point #1 is the PHYSICAL REALITY while the discussion of 'rape' and 'insurgency' in the synthetic terms of 'beings' and 'what beings do' as if in an empty operating theatre is 'semantic reality' which differs radically from the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience.

what male has not found himself in situations where sexual tensions rise and he has to struggle to hold his sexual desires in check?

how then, can anyone discuss an event in which the male has not managed to hold his desires in check in the one-sided terms of an 'intentional act'?

Point # 3 The Western religious and Western scientific models of man as independent beings with internal process driven and directed behaviours who are therefore fully and solely responsible for their own behaviours .... is an over-simplified, convenient model that delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] in constructing 'semantic realities'. it is far from 'physical reality'.

if the interpretation is to be meaningful, it must be grounded in physical reality, it cannot start from eruptions of violence such as 'rape' or 'insurgency' or 'terrorism' as if they 'speak for themselves', as if 'situational influence' does not exist so that the event can be portrayed as 'intention-driven'. 'rape', 'insurgency' and 'terrorism' are situation-induced, whether the situational influence is building over years or generations, it is still the physical reality. the documention of a 'rape' starting from 'the rape event' is 'semantic reality', ... something we can talk about and use as an 'operative reality' in logical analysis which differs radically from the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience.

don't ONE-SIDEDLY ask Geronimo to consider the feelings of 'his victims', ask those victims about Geronimo's feelings, or do we assume they are irrelevant? how torn up must one feel on the threshold of 'going on a rampage'? do we want to confine our analysis to 'semantic realities' told in terms of notional 'independent beings' and their 'intention-driven acts', or do we want to 'get real' and go beyond the view of humans as stick-men with logic based central processing units who are fully and solely intention activated, ...and acknowledge the ambient relational-situational tensions we actually physically live in, as our own modern physics affirms?

give out medals to all males for each occasion they could have taken a female by force and who felt like just going for such embrace, but who did not [others do and it works out so there are no charges], and there would be so many medals given out that maybe the question would be; 'how do we ever manage to hold our basic nature in check to the extent we do?'

the same 'physical reality' holds for insurgency and terrorism. the tensions can be so intense that one can almost see a red hot glow and steam rising from the masses, ... and then one insurgent pops off like a popping corn and those who are authoring these tensions call this an unprovoked intention-driven offense which fails to consider the feelings of the innocent victims.

Many animals at the the slaughter house, sensing the end is near, go into a mating frenzy. Some say it is a primordial instinctual drive by the genes to multiply and prevent extinction. Similar events occur amongst humans when placed under stress or when consuming alcohol or drugs, the devil genetic reflex kicks in.

this raises imagery of talking horses; "Mister Ed, ... I'm thinking that the end is near, ... how about you?"

animals, including humans, respond to direct physical sensations. when animals huddle for warmth, they do not do so because they have done the calculations and determined that thermal energy dissipation is inversely proportional to the ratio of surface area to contained volume. neither did they determine this by noting that their martinis became colder faster with crushed ice instead of large cubes. such explanations that notionally intellectualize the participants in collective behaviour are artefacts of having first modeled the participants as 'independent beings' in a notional non-participating [Euclidian] space.

science is always putting intention into an unnatural precedence over situation. when the snowline recedes in springtime siberia, it pulls up its skirts exposing tender and juicy lichens that have reindeer chasing the rising skirt north, and then, as it drops again, heading back south to eat those that have by now replenished. science intellectualizes this 'migration' and then searches for the internal migratory programming that tells the reindeer [or salmon etc.] when to move south and then north and searches for navigational equipment that gives them this year's trajectory. explaining everything by intellection is what one is forced to do by first defining the entity as an independent being. science is still searching for where plants hide their amazing ecosystemic cooperation intelligence faculties, rather than acknowledging that relations are the source of things in ecosystems rather than vice versa; i.e. science believes that 'genes' are intellectual devices that 'know what they are doing'. that's what Darwinism is based on.

graeber and company even force democracy and community organization into this narrow 'intellectual' mold. it's only Western man that depends on 'egalitarian decision making'. even cattle will move to greener pastures when they have eaten all the grass in the field they're in, without having to have a town hall to discuss the approaching famine and what to do about it.

the relational tensions that arise in a 'community-out-of-balance' are the source of 'venting' that manifests in eruptions of violence. those who are in a favourable position wrt to the imbalances will label the venters 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' and launch counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism measures, portraying the 'venters' as jumpstart authors of violence [denying the relational tensions coming from imbalances in the community, the real source of the eruptions of violence].

raping is a 'venting' that arises when (a) abilities to hold on to sexual tensions are reduced by drinking/drug-taking, and when (b) sexual tensions are increased as women reveal more and allow more open access to erotic talk and expression. this is the physical reality of our actual, natural experience.

to have a 'policy for rape/rapists' is like having a 'policy for insurgency/insurgents out of context of the relational social dynamic'. Not only does this not address the basic sourcing, ... it obfuscates the physical reality by scapegoating [depicting as full and sole sources] the 'venters' in eruptions of violence of this type; i.e. rape, insurgency, terrorism, so that imbalances and associated tensions in the relational social dynamic go unaddressed, increasing frustrations and tensions and thus worsening rather than improving the situation.

what the actual fuck

Yeah I really liked the article but I'm pretty sure I'm appalled by whatever Emile just said.

Is that rape is contingently born of trauma, tensions and relational asymmetries. Be appalled as you like, but it's the best kind of amoral analysis of the situation outside of silly plebeian right/wrong judgements.

Plebian being fascist jargon. I don't know what to do with this patrician degeneracy..

Have you. Calling someone a pleb does not mean you represent an upper class disposition.

Still fascist jargon. Doesn't matter if some obscure 20th century fringe threw it around. You throw it around as the fascists do. You definitely aren't the inheritor of Novatore.

These kinds of insults predate fascism. Novatore and Martucci were known for that kind of language and they were from the opposite end of fascism. Also, you do know about association fallacies right?

You are the idiot if you think I'm buying your fascination with fascist jargon. Do you have a Bee in your bonnet? Asking that is less obscure than your fascist jargon outside of fascists and their friends. Next thing you'll be ending your posts "88" or "14 words" or some other way, then be like "What, 88 is just a number and 14 words, that could be any 14 words!". You are such a scum fuck. Get the fuck off this site.

Why? So what remains will be judgemental people assigning others to categories?

So you can annoint yourself arbiter of 'correct morality' as you see it?

Are your politics built on witch hunts for exlusion from groups? How is that different from society currently?

Once again, how is recognizing relations are all there are and playing them (context) over symbolic thought (content) ring wing, or fascist or any other swear word you project? Every living creature is fascist, ring wing, third positionist under your view.

Where is there a desire for re-balancing and re-harmonizing relations from you? All i see is you taking snippets of people's lives and throwing them wholesale into your category for 'bad people.' What if no one gives a fuck about obeying the invisible lines you propose?

I'm anarchistic to your conceptions, any of your wings and positionists.

Sir Einzige is a fascist pedophile and I don't give a shit if you whine all day about morality and that is exactly why the anti-moral stance is utter bullshit. It isn't one backed by any form of power, it is just philosophical waxing on about dumb shit that Seinfield might of also noticed. "You ever wonder how morality isn't real, yet people act like it is? What is up with that? Is there a God telling them things? No god ever talked to me, so what's up with that?" On and on, then when you grow up to be a big boy, you realize no matter how much you go on about some idea you have, if there isn't any power behind it, it isn't going to go anywhere.

Co-opting a struggle, substitutionism, reification, recuperation, these are symptoms of power being taken from a perceived agent of change, be it the individual, the mass, the multitude, the family, the proletariat, etc. and that power being used to pacify the agent of change. Sir Einzige has been on a little campaign with his weirdo buddies attempting to find a fusion between fringe fascist, individualist and pedophile thinkers (he has become disappointed that PLW might not actually be a pedophile as he has been accused of), borrowing from the post left anarchist critique a positioning that attempts to bridge the national anarchist into the individualist by manipulating Stirner's "anarch" into an archetype of philosophic spookbusting, pseudo-white supremacy, rape culture apologia, a fascist friendly anarchy that passes the litmus test of weaker minded individualists, but not those dedicated to stamping out fascism as a cultural force.

Most of his "recruits" are weak minded MRAs that want to be an anarchist without actually putting in the effort to participate with other anarchists and see the real, contextual reasons why anarchists are more often on the side of immigrants and indigenous and not on the side of nationalists and imperialists. To me, Sir Einzige is the result of an ennui that comes from the bored middle class that has no large life conflicts. No kids, no girlfriends. Just a mom, upstairs, bringing down the pizza rolls, keeping the internet running for their loser kid that can't get the fuck out of the house and live a little.

However, given how deeply Sir Einzige has drank from the darker parts of the internet, his pedophile tendencies, his fascism, his love of rape and hatred for the mentally disabled, I think that perhaps his parents may have a lock on the basement to keep their monster from interacting with the real world. So I share this prison hell with this asshole everyday. I hope to perhaps drive him mad.

TFW people with no sense of nuance accuse the post left of fascism

Yeah this guy doesn't have it and is just plain intellectually deficient. And I'm sure enough read that last post that the collective deleted.

If amoralism means spouting off right wing platitudes supporting rape, I want no part in this nonsense.

intuition is situational experience based understanding and is in a natural precedence over the generalized universals of reason which mobilize intention to vanquish situation. Western civilization is trying to invert this natural precedence and to thus convert humans into logical machines. "i feel your swollen knob about to seedfest inside of me, I withdraw my permission, NO means NO. .. read my lips".

reason (as in forensic science) and morality go together in Western justice. this means that in spite of a situation wherein the social relational dynamic has become oppressive, the witchhunts for insurgents [needed for transformation] stupidly persist. the logical rules of the powerful trump the natural exigencies of experienced physical reality. "La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure".

voluntary moderating, ... of female body covering and communal alcohol/drug taking, ... are intuitive measures for reducing relational-social [sexual] tensions [the source of collapse of social-relational balance-keeping that leads back to natural practice]. these intuitive measures, at the same time, contradict the logic of gender equality [idealization not known or practiced in the natural world].

which 'moral practice' [modesty of dress and moderation in drug-based letting go, ... or exercising of gender-equality rights] takes precedence over which; i.e. should the herd move to the left or to the right? ["morality is a herd instinct" - Nietzsche]

a community that chooses to put the logic of gender equality into an unnatural precedence over the intuition that equal practices of body covering and communal drinking/drug-taking undermine the ability to hold relational social [sexual] tensions in balance, is going to experience increased regression to natural animal behaviours, aka raping,... increased policing, or both.

of course, intuition is experience-based understanding, elicited and acted on according to particulars of unfolding relational situations, whereas reason and logic are generalized 'universals' [e.g. we have 'policies' for 'rape', 'theft', etc., ... all we have to do is determine whether an action qualifies as a member of the category;

"an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

reason and logic are inherently incomplete and exposed to contradiction; i.e. moral judgements are full of contradictions. One person's courageous hero is another person's satanic monster [American sniper, Middle Eastern 9/11 sniper].

“Morality is neither rational nor absolute nor natural. World has known many moral systems, each of which advances claims universality; all moral systems are therefore particular, serving a specific purpose for their propagators or creators, and enforcing a certain regime that disciplines human beings for social life by narrowing our perspectives and limiting our horizons.” -- Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good and Evil'

Nice to see you're enlightening insights into relational social dynamics. Yes, alcohol and drugs and jocks and sluts are a recipe for rape in the true sense, and not the holistic reciprosity model of sexual venting I experienced. Some people just can't get out of the moral mold they have allowed themselves to be poured into.

Where's the downvote button? I keep reaching for it...

On principle I do not down vote for anything. People who downvote are not much better then those who downvote cute animal videos/pics.

A novatorean morality of reddit emerges...

Novatore was amoral and harnessed the spontaneous poetic energies only individuated creative beings are capable of understanding, since ones personal control of ones instinctual drives are proportionate to the exercise of ones will to remain unindoctrinated by the ethics of hierarchical cultural systems.

Spontaneous poetic downvote on LeWay

The more ya'll talk about him, the less I believe his story.

The real Novatore story:

Some wank kid psychopath wrote some shit from his folks' basement. Never did anything more than steal his dad's smokes. He died of aids and cancer.

The end

This analysis is ridiculous. Rape is caused by the fact that we live in a ridiculously violent heteropatriarchiaral society. Rape is extremely REACTIONARY violence, not comparable to revolutionary violence. Death to all rapists.

the point is that when relational tensions rise in a community, nation or global collective, eruptions of violence manifest such as rape, insurgency, terrorism.

this violence can be brutal, horrific, disgusting and the common response is to morally condemn the evil acts and the evil people who authored them, and to launch counter-measures; e.g. counterinsurgency.

morally judging the insurgent [or rapist, or terrorist] is a mistake. it is a mistake because moral judgement is a medieval concept that infers that the devil has possessed the person and that it is the evil inside the person that is the jumpstart source of the evil act.

the reality is that the horrific act was situationally induced by tensions associated with an out of balance relational social dynamic. however 'evil' the act was, it did not jumpstart from the individual who committed it. when there are tensions in the community, individuals become the flash points or conduits for such short-circuits to happen, and when they erupt in violence, it can be very messy.

the 'insurgent', the 'rapist', the 'terrorist' is the symptom rather than the source. moral judgement is a binary thing where the accusers elevate themselves to angelic innocence in the same fell swoop the paint those they judge with satanic guilt.

what you have going on is an out-of-whack relational social dynamic. what moral judgement gives you is a holy war between angels and devils where counterinsurgency measures are witchhunts that seek out 'folk devils'. The psychology, termed 'moral panic' is well known see Stanley Cohen, 'Folk Devils and Moral Panics'.

the fires of the moral panic are fuelled by 'moral entrepreneurs' such as people, media, authorities who publish articles pointing the finger at the 'folk devils' (insurgents, terrorists, rapists). The relational imbalances that are the real source of the eruptions of violence are often made worse by the witchhunting.

so, that's the comparison between insurgency and rape (and then again, terrorism); i.e. in our current era, they all play out in 'moral panics' that manufacture 'folk devils' with 'moral entrepreneurs' fanning the flames.

words words words.. 30 years later. word words words.

Words is all I have to distract you. Thousands and thousands of words. Hundreds and hundreds of 10,000-word comments. Distraction. From what? Pay attention to me I am not a robot I am BLIP BLIP M'REEE BLIP relevant.

Well use words properly then if that's all you have. Its "Words ARE all I have,,,,,"

And all I used was my words. I am bestest troll in whole @narchist news scene! Yay for BLIP BLIP M'REEE BLIP still processing try back again later.

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?
M
Y
c
M
G
F
z
Enter the code without spaces.