10
BeauOfTheFifthColumn's Problematic Past
(yt.artemislena.eu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
10 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism and Social Ecology
1890 readers
29 users here now
!anarchism@slrpnk.net
A community about anarchy. anarchism, social ecology, and communalism for SLRPNK! Solarpunk anarchists unite!
Feel free to ask questions here. We aspire to make this space a safe space. SLRPNK.net's basic rules apply here, but generally don't be a dick and don't be an authoritarian.
Anarchism
Anarchism is a social and political theory and practice that works for a free society without domination and hierarchy.
Social Ecology
Social Ecology, developed from green anarchism, is the idea that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in our social problems. This is because the domination of nature and our ecology by humanity has its ultimate roots in the domination humanity by humans. Therefore, the solutions to our ecological problems are found by addressing our social and ecological problems simultaneously.
Libraries
Audiobooks
- General audiobooks
- LibriVox Public domain book collection where you can find audiobooks from old communist, socialist, and anarchist authors.
- Anarchist audiobooks
- Socialist Audiobooks
- Social Ecology Audiobooks
Quotes
Poetry and imagination must be integrated with science and technology, for we have evolved beyond an innocence that can be nourished exclusively by myths and dreams.
~ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom
People want to treat ‘we’ll figure it out by working to get there’ as some sort of rhetorical evasion instead of being a fundamental expression of trust in the power of conscious collective effort.
~Anonymous, but quoted by Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us
The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.
~Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven
The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.
~Murray Bookchin, "A Politics for the Twenty-First Century"
There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.
~Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism
In modern times humans have become a wolf not only to humans, but to all nature.
The ecological question is fundamentally solved as the system is repressed and a socialist social system develops. That does not mean you cannot do something for the environment right away. On the contrary, it is necessary to combine the fight for the environment with the struggle for a general social revolution...
~Abdullah Öcalan
Social ecology advances a message that calls not only for a society free of hierarchy and hierarchical sensibilities, but for an ethics that places humanity in the natural world as an agent for rendering evolution social and natural fully self-conscious.
~ Murray Bookchin
Network
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I like that you've read comments on the video. I think you should watch the video itself or read the transcript. The author isn't seeking Beau's further incarceration or some other form of vengeance. Anarchism does seek the abolition of police and prisons, and Card's interest in restorative justice over punishment is consistent with this kind of anarchism.
Justin King / Beau is not "barred from society" or even anarchist society, and that's not what Card is advocating. This is a discussion among anarchists about credence, not incarceration. You can't institutionalize trust; Card is providing his own assessment as well as information essential for anyone to make up their own mind.
I did watch the video. I also read the sources at the bottom of the video, and like several other comments noticed, the documents do not support a lot of the claims made in the video. However, even if they were supported by the documents, I still don't agree with the stance of the video.
The argument is that because he did something bad at one point, people should consider his past actions before any of his current ones, and that this justifies distrust of his current actions. When we live and operate in a world where trust is necessary for cooperation and survival, even suggesting to distrust someone indefinitely for long past actions and ignoring all steps taken to remedy is asking for him to be barred from that society.
It also assumes that the only reason people would support him is if they were unaware of his past actions, and they heavily imply that people who do trust him are unable to make sound decisions, not in the least by doing one of the least anarchist things possible by trusting the words of government entities known for targeting leftists and charging them with exaggerated crimes.
You are right that you can't institutionalize trust, but I am calling out a pattern that I am recognizing of people who advocate for this particular social model being unwilling to put their money where their mouth is in regards to acknowledging and supporting input from people with convictions or marred histories. The video states nothing new and instead is continuing to repeat this 'questioning' without accounting for the fact that this questioning has already taken place and done nothing except draw people away from a community that values direct action and social support.
If his past had anything to do with his current content and actions, I agree more scrutiny would be needed. But my question still stands, what should the guidelines be for deciding that a person no longer deserves to have their participation in society treated as suspect or worthy of excess questioning? At what point do people deserve to be allowed to change and exist without their motive being questioned?
This statement has the potential for a more productive discussion. Which claims do you think are not supported by the documents?
Why are you looking to change the subject? I already said that my point stands even if the claims in the video were supported by the documents. I am not here for discussion of nitpicks of the video, I am here to see what people have to say about the topic of people with complicated histories being allowed to be active within anarchist spaces. If you agree with the person in the video, then answer my question, instead of trying to deflect.
I'm not deflecting. I'm choosing not to engage. Forgive me for assuming you didn't watch the video, but your comments indicate you didn't absorb most of what the author was trying to say, and instead gave it your own twist. If you can't parse the messages from the video, what hope do I have of explaining things to you?
If you want to continue, you need to indicate that you respect opposing viewpoints enough to pay attention to the detail of what is being explained to you. If you can correctly summarize the claims made the in video, and indicate that you've read the documents well enough to try and dispute them, that's one way of showing you're engaging respectfully.
You're asking someone to do you a favor, don't waste their time.
Asking for people's thoughts on a subject is encouraging discussion, not asking for a favor. And why do I need to provide further evidence of having watched the video when, as I have stated before, the contents of the video are secondary to the existence of the video in the first place? This video is exactly like several other videos and articles about the subject, except it is the newest one, and is being posted in a space where (supposedly) people recognize that we have a very flawed legal system.
Given the fact that you have been the one dismissive of me, given that you assumed I hadn't watched the video based solely on the fact that I disagreed, tells me that you aren't interested in actually engaging in the discussion around my question. Instead you seem entirely focused on luring me into a discussion around whether the video's claims are true or not, which, as I said earlier, has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to stick to.
So again, even if everything in the video is 100% correct as stated, I still want to know what people think should be accepted as evidence of change of character. Obviously it is case dependent, but having a guideline will be helpful, especially if we are pushing for something like prison abolition, which a lot of people will see as extreme if there is no example of a replacement. Given that we specifically want a solution that involves reintegration of a person into society, determining what is required for that reintegration is key. Because right now, we are advocating for these policies while currently supporting a pattern of refusing to allow people like Beau to participate in communities based on past actions, even when all actions since are showing someone who is genuine and in no position to repeat past offences.
For what it's worth, I think these are important questions and wish I had answers for them. Part of why I watch this community and the one for Abolition of Police and Prisons is to try to understand what society looks like in this very different framework. Figuring out how an anarchist society gauges rehabilitation and identifies milestones is a good goal.
Thank you. Again, I know that not everyone will have the same answer, and no single answer will be right for every situation. I already know about a bunch of general ideas surrounding community restitution on various forms, but I know that it is a difficult discussion to have when the topic is a real situation and not a hypothetical.
Your cover story is wearing pretty thin.
This isn't really about Beau, is it?
Very much like Beau, you're deflecting and minimizing the facts rather than admitting that you were wrong. If you want people to treat you as a changed person, you need to demonstrate that you have changed. By not taking full accountability for what you have done, you're indicating that under the veneer of kindness, you are still the same abusive person you were before.
This isn't a tenet of anarchism, this transcends politics and culture. No-one owes you forgiveness for your abuse. You need to change, but you shouldn't change because you think it will make people forgive you; you can't force that. Everyone you hurt is justified in despising you, and everyone who cares about the people you hurt is justified in holding a grudge. You can change everything about yourself and never be forgiven - forgiveness can't be earned. Forgiveness is a gift. It can't be bestowed upon you through government, philosophy, or religion; it can only be given by the ones you've harmed. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.
It's not what you and Beau did, its what you both continue to do that demonstrates you are not worthy of trust.