Anarchy Bang: Introducing Episode Fourteen - Violence

  • Posted on: 5 April 2019
  • By: anarchybang

From Anarchy Bang

This week we are going to discuss violence. Does anarchism require consent from everyone? If it does is it necessarily pacifistic? If it doesn't is it militaristic and/or terroristic? How do we judge?

Join in the conversation!

Sunday at noon (PST or -7 UTC) at https://anarchybang.com/
Email questions ahead if you like
The real time IRC is a chaotic mess (and pleasure). There are better ways to connect to IRC but it involves some reading
The call in number is (646) 787-8464

Comments

Violence is shit distinction.
Wills will clash, whether free(d) or not.
Force applied in conflict won't be abolished.
Each decides what's commensurate force.
Some are more adept at this than others.
States (and warfare, and terrorism) isn't the only conceivable physically possible arrangement.
It's the current one.
Do you like it? How do you interact with it? Do you want to end it? How would you do it? Can you do that? Will you do that? Which of your assumptions are more accurate and which are just plain wrong?

Terrorism is theatralized force; effect relying on maximum visibility, to impact horror, demoralization, and "resonance". Covert applications of force (lethal or not) are just as spectacular, as are all the goings-on backstage to make a show possible. Spectacular is not synonym with "bad", but a specific way the will of some is asserted by selectively exhibiting and covering up, world-building and world-destroying. War, politics, the economy, the spectacle, technology, techniques, force, narratives, arguments, can all be means used to assert a will.

Which means do you like or prefer (if any)? Which do you detest (if any)? Do you have the ability to avoid using or being used by some of them?

inb4 all the violence experts and badasses show up to teach everyone. . . oh wait

Bluff you with a display of threat is called psychological violence. Experts use bluff,
--Machiavelli tough guy

how does commenting top of my head considerations orvopinions on a anews comment section make me an expert or a badass?

is provoking and asking questions, teaching?

i mean, did socrates got a copyright on conversation and now any question is applying the socratic method?

talk to me or something. speak your mind. i want to know your opinions or how you disagree with these bare assertions/assumptions/opinions, and basic general questions.

They're just trolling. But yeah, funny shit!

Presumably we should only let people who know almost nothing about violence do the talking ... Oh wait.

Isn't consent just a subcategory of autonomy? (assertion alert, ikr?!)

So anarchy/ism doesn't "require consent" so much as it requires a decent antiauthoritarian analysis for deciding when to apply the logic of consent.

My desire is to respect everyone's autonomy until someone is clearly enjoying great advantages over others at which point, I decide to withdraw my default respect because they're demonstrating that they don't have any so...

I choose to seek consent... Or not. It's basically up to you, how interested I am in whether you "consent". Your choices inform mine. How this relates to violence should be obvious.

...as something you can gain out of somebody, in a transactional market. There this ain't autonomy at all.

What is autonomous -as in "self-driven" or self-powered- is DESIRE, or at least intent. Without these, your consent is nothing but end result of grooming. Pushing one person's will into one specific direction, through manipulation.

We've discussed this in the TOTW about "grooming"... On how consent in itself is not enough.

that is--insisting that everyone involved in a sexual interaction (or maybe any kind of interaction) be entirely of one mind about whatever they're participating in.
that is to say, people are ambivalent. people almost always have multiple conflicting desires. pretending that that is not true is part of the problem of dealing with consequences and regret and miscommunication, etc.
relationship violence canNOT adequately be left at "someone going against someone else's desires..." probabyl not being clear but i'm sleepy

^^ WARNING^^ Heavy righteous X-tian morality rave about to start. WARNING, STAY CLEAR !!!

wow … OP here … this is pretty damning since I wasn't talking about sex at all. The topic is violence and when its use would be appropriate, since you don't get consent for it. Maybe take a good long look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're so tone deaf when anyone uses the word consent?

"come at me, bro" is consent for fisty cuffs

Here's the question: "Does anarchism require consent from everyone? If it does, is it necessarily pacifistic?"

I'm saying no. Tryin for nuance. What about you? Trolling in your sleep?

With these messed up cascading flows of comments it's impossible to tell without quotes or timestamps!

Are you denying that violence cannot be involved in gaining consent. Enforcing your desires or bending another person's desires toward your self-serving direction is not violence? Wtf.

"cannot" >>> "can"

That's not consent. That's just force. jfc ...

And Jesus was a sailor, when he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower.
And when he knew for certain, only drowning men could see him,
He said: "All men will be sailors then, until the sea shall free them."
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open,
Forsaken, almost human,
He sank beneath your wisdom, like a stone

Muhrican nihilists are soooo cool the dont need gods and yuropeen things and beleefs and they dont judge peeple from they looks like yuropeen peeple and ther cuhlture and they dont do vilent things until the get attact

no u

I love it when American anarchists criticise,
Non-American anarchists for not being not American,
Not for American anarchists being too American,
For their own and everyone else's good.

Where is teh critique here?

violence is bad

violence is scary because it hurts people. pacifism never hurt anyone.

Yeah and smelling hair never hurt anyone mkay!

exactly

And then smiling at and kissing the top of the strangers head whilst caressing their neck is being good and kind and non-violent mkay!?

Authority inverts the ethics of violence so that aggressive collisions, competitive impacts, vigorous exercising in public, insensitive tackles, unemotional insertions and violent penetrations are regarded as good and beneficial whilst sexual intervention with strangers, kissing of random children, massaging unknown women on crowded buses, and having sexual intercourse in public is regarded as bad and harmful.
We are nolonger wild nihilists anymore!

Do you mean that going to war is acceptable and pornography is unacceptable?

"pacifism never hurt anyone."

do you seriously believe that? if you think supporters of gandhi and mkl never got hurt due to their pacifism, you need to read some history.

that was violence hurting the pacifists, not the other way around.
violence is bad.
self-defense is allowed.

^^^ "mkl" ==> "mlk"

i'd like a clarification on terms here, as you're using them, maybe in the editorial or the top of the show? specifically: violence & consent (the relationship), pacifism, militaristic, terroristic.

are the major questions here entirely limited to humans or are other species part of the conversation? if just humans then is anarchism applicable to just humans?

Does anarchism require consent from everyone? If it does is it necessarily pacifistic? If it doesn't is it militaristic and/or terroristic? How do we judge?

1. no
2. no
3. no
4. experience (or don't!).

meanwhile…

a: may i smash your face with this brick?
b: yes
c: :buttterfly-meme: is this violence?

later…
a: i'll have a six piece chicken mcnugget and a vanilla shake
c: :butterfly-meme: is this violence?

later… (from the hospital)
b: i'd like to report an assault

/fin

Why was that wingnut caller so angry shouting and making no sense? Did they lose friends during a mission spreading anarchism in the Niger Delta? Do they blame Little Black Cart for the violence? I don't understand.

Does there need to be an Anarchy Bang episode on testosterone?

the advent of controlled fire set off a chain reaction that increased testosterone production and gave birth to violence and oppression in the form of patriarchy

I told ya it was the Soros-run CARTEL running the FAKE OPPOSITION for the global robber barons
Illuminati JEWS who can't help takin away our liberty and rob our guns and rape our kids. THEY KNOW the auspices of revolt can be undermine by endless po-mo talk of academia, THEY KNOW that pacifism is a useful drug along with the fluoride in Michigan lake to corrupt the youth to make them stupid and pacified with PBR, wake up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPrzkkbxFeQ&t=66s

^^^ This track is pretty great, all trolling aside

I think the questions here about violence were misguided. Does anarchism aims at having everyone's consent, or is everyone's consent even a question? Maybe purifying those questions from contained assertions?

To me any anarchy is more of a "breaking open" than an "enforcing". Or at least a "liberating". The idea that liberating is a kind of enforcement sounds pretty crass. Kinda like saying American Black slaves were enforcing the hardships of liberation upon the "good White slave-owners", or how cops are being oppressed by street gangs. Def not where A! was getting at, but that's within the horizon of these first questions about "enforcing freedom". Anarchy is a basic condition on this planet BY DEFAULT...

I'm also wondering whether anarchism is even a thing, or if there is any consensus among all those thinking themselves as anarchists, on what this anarchism is, or what an anarchist world is supposed to be... I heard a few weirdos lately talking about anarchism as well as supporting a social-democrat party in the same sentence.

More important question that urges being asked at every show: what are we really talking about?

A little late to this but I think the word "violence" exists only in a society where civilized interactions are moralized to be passive. Do I believe in "violence" between anarchists? Well, depends on what kinda anarchist ya talkin' bout. Some social justice warrior "anarchists" consider verbal insults "violent". Many would say a knife fight between two anarchists is violence. And some say hardcore dancing at a show is an expression of violence.

I like the word "conflict". Violence is a loaded term intended to manipulate emotional response to a situation. There will always be the potential for conflict as long as there is social interactions. Conflict is neither "good" nor "bad". It just happens. I think many anarchists are not used to the idea of permanent conflict, and therefore in response try to suppress its potential for occurring through moralism.

Basically, in my opinion, conflict is the naturally occurring result of free interactions between unique individuals. I much prefer conflict than coerced peace.

i agree. in part it’s what i was pointing at with my first comment. but you speak more naturally. i speak like a robot or some shit.

What do we do with people who obsess over the threat of conflict because they don't want it in their lives? Those who refuse to sacrifice the comfort and security provided by the State?

Why would an anarchist be asking the question "what do we do with people" in the way that you are?

Pat there hand and say "their there" but make sure it's the right use of theyre

Is it possible to be a nihilist and a pacfist?

it’s possible but i forbid it

unless you pay me

in cuddles

Add new comment