tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143156594353039090.post7874603186114033129..comments2013-09-21T23:07:12.888-05:00Comments on Thoughts on the Struggle: PonderingSetantahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07203926704262636983noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143156594353039090.post-45661467955003005972009-01-03T15:01:00.000-06:002009-01-03T15:01:00.000-06:00Hi, I just found your blog and like it. Just to le...Hi, I just found your blog and like it. Just to let you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143156594353039090.post-84300163522595437812008-12-29T02:24:00.000-06:002008-12-29T02:24:00.000-06:00I read a bit more on that web site. What do they m...I read a bit more on that web site. What do they mean when they say "Pride events have been crashed"? (here - http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com/about/ )<BR/><BR/>And this:<BR/><BR/>"Fight for liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation."<BR/><BR/>Does that mean steps toward gay marriage are not something we should fight for, or does that mean steps toward gay marriage are things we should fight against?<BR/><BR/>Either way, seems wrong to me. I'm not excited about working for state recognition of marriage, but I think it's obvious that gay marriage would be an advance. Sure, it's not everything we want, but it's better than the current condition. Just like legalization of inter-racial marriage was an advance.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08918436253681803057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143156594353039090.post-77056021137431519732008-12-29T02:17:00.000-06:002008-12-29T02:17:00.000-06:00That action strikes me as a really bad idea, even ...That action strikes me as a really bad idea, even though based on a legitimate sense of outrage. It's like when some idiots spraypainted an SEIU office - a local, for fuck's sake! - over stuff in Puerto Rico.<BR/><BR/>This kind of thing seems to me to rest on a fundamental confusion between attacking *oppression* and attacking *oppressors*. If I beat up someone who owns a sweatshop I have not fought exploitation, I've fought an exploiter. If that boss then responds by making conditions even worse then I have arguably aided exploitation rather than fight it. <BR/><BR/>It's also not at all clear that this was really something which would hurt the Mormon church as an oppressive institution - it might just was well cause the members of that church to become more devout and dedicated to their faith and their institution. <BR/><BR/>I mean, can you think of anything less conducive to opening someone's mind to a message than trying to communicate that message in the form of an attack on something a person cares a lot about? Like, my mom's got some problems. If you wanted to talk to me about that then I'd be way more receptive to almost any other approach than I would be to spraypainting "this person has major problems!" on my mom's house.<BR/><BR/>This strikes me as par for the course for the convention protest stuff, though, and isn't at all surprising. <BR/><BR/>I also think that attacking a church is bad news for anarchism - it makes us look crazy and anti-social to most people, the type of people who the state needs to protect people from. That's fine for anarchists who are relatively privileged as they'll be less likely to face repression (or will have recourse to support networks, money, and white privilege if the do), but it could have worse consequences for less privileged folk.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08918436253681803057noreply@blogger.com