Things leftists say that you hate hearing all of the time

"We need a mix of socialism and capitalism!"

Pretty much anything that takes an apologetic approach towards capitalism.

mismatched language for the situation, everything has to 'fight' this, or 'smash' that, but mostly the actual activities will tend toward going on a march or handing out a leaflet.

Did you vote?

[no]

Why not?

[concise explanation of anti-electoralism in favour of working-class self-organization]

Well, if you didn't vote, you've got no business complaining then.

[wait, did you hear me?]

People who instead of engaging in intelligent debate just label anyone that doesn't 100% agree with them (even other left-wingers) a fascist.

And don't even get me started on people who think retweeting or liking something on facebook is going to cause a revolution. Worst case was the whole Kony 2012 campaign, as if an inhumane Warlord was going to log onto facebook and go shit Mike,18 from Surrey has just shared the Invisible Children video on his facebook and said 'You're a bad man Mr.Kony', I'm going to hand myself in.

Asking people to sign their partition, especially the ones where its actual a disguised mailing list

Well, if you didn't vote, you've got no business complaining then.

This thread should end right there. There is nothing that anyone can say that comes anywhere close to being as homicide inducingly infuriating as that.
Vanilla politics. Yuk.

Corporate. Corpocracy. Corporate wars. Corporations have ruined the checks and balances in American democracy. Banks and corporations. Corporate candidate. These god damned corporations! If it wasn't for the corporations capitalism would be fine. C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-O-N.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdAtGV6hVCk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erTN58xt-jo

From some recent conversations:
"If it wasn't for state socialism, I wouldn't exist."
"But unions are the working class organising themselves".
"I see what you're saying but I just don't see how communism can happen without an inbetween stage organised by the state. But honestly, I think we're on the same side, aren't we?"
"hah, anarchism? I've never heard of any significant number of workers being anarchists."

Anything Micheal Moore says. Privilege theory terminology. Things about voting- why I should vote. "You really can't complain if you don't vote". Stuff about supporting the Democrats healthcare law in America. Anything about supporting democrats. People like Berny Sanders and Lawrence O'Donnell who call themselves "socialists". Anything they say is suspect. Those guys are suspicious. Gulags for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxKd5lpZwLY

"Cis gender". I don't know why that term bothers me. Trigger warnings. My entire life needs a trigger warning. I'm not sure when communism became about creating a world where no ones feelings are hurt, where no one can be offended, where no one experiences any sort of discomfort at the hands of others. I've been assaulted before, over a decade ago, was in the hospital for two weeks. When people discuss assault/violence I don't need a trigger warning. This sounds insensitive I know. I've seen a person shot/murdered in front of me. Still don't need a trigger warning when murder is being discussed. Disgusting and traumatic as that was.

Slogans. Protest slogans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sum3GOkmDd0

The "peoples mic" at Occupy events. I need a trigger warning when people pull that so I can leave. I feel like reality is being trolled when the peoples mic is in action. Especially when Zizek was speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdyMV1AKHGg

I suppose the worst case scenario would be Zizek giving a trigger warning on the peoples mic before a speech about corporations after which we all sing protest songs and chant slogans. I'm aware this post will be voted down. Sorry. I need to work on accepting "trigger warnings" I know.

Folk/bluegrass music. I went to see Howard Zinn speak yeas back and for whatever reason folk music was preformed on stage. Went as saw Chomsky as well, same thing. This is an American leftist phenomenon. Pete Seger type stuff. Banjo's and standing bass. Clapping at speaking events. Everyone claps all the time. Sometimes they feel like church sermons.

"Stop greedy CEOs!" "Fight corporatism!" "Corporations have taken over the country!" "Get money out of politics!""First Amendment First Amendment First Amendment First Amendment!"

Also the description of minuscule demonstrations as "pressuring" the government or whatever.

I feel like some sort of asshole.

"Cis gender". I don't know why that term bothers me.

If you're not transgendered then you're cisgendered, ie. you identify with the gender assigned to you at birth. It's descriptive, not an insult.

Using the word Stalinist to as a synonym for badly behaved (I'm looking at you AWL).

wojtek

"Cis gender".... It's descriptive, not an insult.

I'm not entirely sure about that. 'Cis-' is not simply the opposite of trans but seems to be used to refer to anyone relatively 'straight acting' or someone who hasn't in some way deconstructed their sexuality. I'm queer as fuck but I find all the cis-male patter obscure, alienating, annoying and reeking of identity politics. And I fucking hate identity politics. Much the same goes for all the 'privilege' shite.

Mike S.

"Cis gender". I don't know why that term bothers me.

What wojtek said. Also, transgender people tend to prefer that term because its intended as a replacement for "biological male/female" and "real man/woman."
Mike S.

Trigger warnings. My entire life needs a trigger warning. I'm not sure when communism became about creating a world where no ones feelings are hurt, where no one can be offended, where no one experiences any sort of discomfort at the hands of others. I've been assaulted before, over a decade ago, was in the hospital for two weeks. When people discuss assault/violence I don't need a trigger warning. This sounds insensitive I know. I've seen a person shot/murdered in front of me. Still don't need a trigger warning when murder is being discussed. Disgusting and traumatic as that was.

Trigger warnings aren't there to prevent anyone from being hurt or offended. They're just that: warnings. Warnings for those people who might have a strong negative psychological reaction to the content that follows. While certainly trigger warnings can be overused and sometimes used in ways that don't make any sense, usually people only use them to be courteous and respectful of others who suffer from triggers. If you don't suffer from any psychological triggers, then the warnings don't apply to you. I mean, I've never been raped, but if I was going to link an article to a friend who happens to suffer from trauma triggers as a result of being raped, I'd make a trigger warning in a heartbeat.

Using the term "Crony Capitalism" in a way that implies it is different from capitalism.

Complaining about the "Plutocracy" or "Corporate Oligarchy" for the same reasons.

I'm aware "cisgender" isn't an insult. I'm not sure why the term bothers me. No need to explain the meaning or use of the term. I also know "trigger warning" is to keep people from reliving traumatic experiences but it's overused and in my opinion creates a culture of, well, coddling. It's becoming absurd. Example:

http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html

I mean. A trigger warning for discussing this: http://trypophobia.com/ Really? Snakes, spiders, vomit, discussions of consensual sex,...my favorite, slimy things! Discussions of "clasism"? Needles? Swearing? Yep.

bozemananarchy

Did you vote?

[no]

Why not?

[concise explanation of anti-electoralism in favour of working-class self-organization]

Well, if you didn't vote, you've got no business complaining then.

[wait, did you hear me?]

[no, you've no business complaining, you voted for those assholes, i on the other hand didn't even leave the house that day, so it's your fucking fault (george carlin style)]

Mike S.

I'm aware "cisgender" isn't an insult. I'm not sure why the term bothers me. No need to explain the meaning or use of the term. I also know "trigger warning" is to keep people from reliving traumatic experiences but it's overused and in my opinion creates a culture of, well, coddling. It's becoming absurd. Example:

http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html

I mean. A trigger warning for discussing this: http://trypophobia.com/ Really? Snakes, spiders, vomit, discussions of consensual sex,...my favorite, slimy things! Discussions of "clasism"? Needles? Swearing? Yep.

One time I saw a trigger warning for...get this...cartoon violence! O_O

cis isn't a new word, it just means, roughly, on one side, as opposed to trans on another side. As in Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul, it's been around for a long time. It's also used in the sciences.
I'm not going to repeat myself, I said something about why I value trigger warnings in the comments field of this
http://libcom.org/blog/trigger-warnings-why-we-use-them-15012012
I don't think they're that important in print media, where you can scan down and see what it's about easily but when there are embedded links it's nice to get a heads-up about what's coming sometimes. There was a link I opened in a tweet during the bombing of Gaza last year which opened a picture of the bodies of four freshly killed little kids, I would have really appreciated a warning on that one.

Things that I hate? Probably more of a liberal thing but the misty-eyed nostalgia for a time and a place which didn't exist. I call it Kennedy-Trudeau-Wilsonville, it was sometime before they were born, or can remember but recent enough to have plenty of stock footage of it available for splicing into Michael Moore films. The politicians were honest and decent and worked tirelessly for the people. Hardworking *fill in nationality* did a fair's day's work for a fair's day's pay. There was no crime and everyone was happy. There were probably free kittens with every purchase. I'm not sure where this place was exactly but there seems to be a yearning amongst some people that if only we elected the right politicians, had the right business leaders and had the right laws, we can go back and live there.

Serge Forward

Much the same goes for all the 'privilege' shite.

I have never actually heard anybody go on about it, but I have seen more than enough of it in print. It does annoy me though.

Devrim

By the way, I just downed your post twice when I was trying to quote it as I am lying in bed typing on the phone, and things are little, sorry.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

cis isn't a new word, it just means, roughly, on one side, as opposed to trans on another side. As in Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul, it's been around for a long time. It's also used in the sciences.

Geometric (cis/trans) isomerism scroll down for images describing it.

(trigger warning Party Pooper) ;)
Funny thing is that many of the things mentioned are memes. A device used to strengthen the group and prove that you belong in it. The recent flurry of threads on libcom (such as this one) has a similar purpose. New (and old) posters can prove their belonging by slagging off other groups, repeating unfounded 'truths' and proving your in'ness. But inevitable particularly when our politics are a minority affair and tends to attract people with rather unusual psychological make up or difficult past.

Some of the things annoying people such as trigger warnings and some rather complicated concepts and rules to avoid offending someone are sound but tend to become means of proving oneself or shutting people out. Not very good for people (hopefully) trying to advance your politics and with the predictable result of overusing these devices out of insecurity and fear of doing the wrong thing.

This is imho a huge problem for libcom, lefty, autonomists as it is actually very difficult and requires a lot of knowledge to navigate all the rules. Saying the wrong thing is often met with quite harsh words. AFK the issue is slightly less problematic as personal interaction can help smoothen the ride but from the outside the specialist language and incredible complex rules look impossible to understand or master.

This post could belong in a number of recent threads but ended up here.

difficult to decide where to start ... "vote Labour/SPD/etc. but ..."

"Ken Livingstone is a socialist"

"Tony Benn is a soclialist"

"I'm voting for Sarah Teather because she's very good on Palestine"

Great thread!

"You need a movement in the streets because this is what gives politicians the power to make progressive change."

and the variant:

"You need radicals and reformers, the radicals to keep up the pressure and the reformers to keep things realistic and actually make demands of the establishment."

Also, rec'd this in my inbox yesterday:

"Campaign to keep the Labour/trade union link"

I like folk/bluegrass – think that makes me a closet lefty.

commieprincess

"I'm voting for Sarah Teather because she's very good on Palestine"

the German equivalent: "I'm voting for Jürgen Möllemann because he's very good on Palestine"

one of the main reasons why Möllemann (probably the German equivalent of George Galloway (minus the left-wing populism)) was "good on Palestine" were his strong business contacts with Saudi Arabia and Syria

'Narzi scum - off our streets.' note the elongated 1st vowel. it just sound rubbish and inaccurate.

dp

Trigger warnings with descriptions of what's going to be talked about don't make sense. Example, "Trigger warning, graphic discussion concerning being burned alive in a fire". It would seem, well, if that was a trigger for someone simply reading the trigger warning would be a trigger as the trigger warning itself would bring in mental images of a person being burned alive in a fire. I just don't know about all this. I think it's going to take some major pressure to get me 100% on board. And ya, Cooked, I think memes are abundant on the left. Most coming from the more idealist elements and a lot of times people will fall all over themselves to "out left" others by amplifying these memes to absurd proportions. The Church has it's piety and we sometimes have our own strange form of moral fervor. Go against that grain in any way shape or form and you just might get excommunicated.

May we all aspire to be Christ like.

Ally_S

One time I saw a trigger warning for...get this...cartoon violence! O_O

You mean like this?

Mike S.

Trigger warnings with descriptions of what's going to be talked about don't make sense. Example, "Trigger warning, graphic discussion concerning being burned alive in a fire". It would seem, well, if that was a trigger for someone simply reading the trigger warning would be a trigger as the trigger warning itself would bring in mental images of a person being burned alive in a fire. I just don't know about all this.

Maybe you've only come across trigger warnings on the periphery of where they are useful, so they seem a bit absurd. I first encountered them on message boards for people with mental health problems. Say someone was starting a thread about having trouble with self harming they'd put 'trig-SH' at the end of the thread title, and people who had self harming problems themselves and didn't want to be exposed to a lot of talk about it in case it made them want to do it more would know to avoid that thread. Same for eating disorders, suicide, things that trigger flashbacks for people with PTSD like rape, and so on. In that context it just feels normal and sensible.

But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

RedEd

But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

I think it's useful to warn people that some things might be upsetting, especially with regards to dropping in certain images. But adopting the whole "this episode contains issues that some viewers may find disturbing" approach is frankly disturbing in itself and smacks of BBC style paternalism.

Libertarian Communism may be about solidarity but that is not the same as a 'support group' in the therapy sense. It's about revolutionary ideas, class war, organisation and action. Each and everyone of these topics deserves its own trigger warning. Sure, a degree of sensitivity can go along way, but codifying this into a series of trigger warnings is potentially damaging to our movement and makes us look a bit like the GLC circa 1983.

Seriously, our enemies must be pissing themselves at our ludicrously 'nice' antics.

I am not sure that trigger warnings are in fact the vastly threatening obstruction to the growth of the communist movement that is suggested here.

If anything I'd like to see them improved, ditching the bold caps lock exclamation marked text, in favour of a tidy recognisable graphic.

It seems to me that complaining about trigger warnings is frustration with the communist movement in general, misdirected onto issues that are not the reasons for why it is a marginal political tendency.

Serge Forward

RedEd

But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

I think it's useful to warn people that some things might be upsetting, especially with regards to dropping in certain images. But adopting the whole "this episode contains issues that some viewers may find disturbing" approach is frankly disturbing in itself and smacks of BBC style paternalism.

Libertarian Communism may be about solidarity but that is not the same as a 'support group' in the therapy sense. It's about revolutionary ideas, class war, organisation and action. Each and everyone of these topics deserves its own trigger warning. Sure, a degree of sensitivity can go along way, but codifying this into a series of trigger warnings is potentially damaging to our movement and makes us look a bit like the GLC circa 1983.

Seriously, our enemies must be pissing themselves at our ludicrously 'nice' antics.

I didn't mean to defend trigger warnings in all of their applications, just to point out where they come from and where they are useful and to show that they are not some made up activoid nonsense but a genuine helpful tool in certain situations.

"You shouldn't oppose unions because THE WORKING CLASS instinctively gravitates towards this form of organizing."

picture says it all

one of the things i hate hearing has actually been said a few times on this thread - complaining about others discussing or addressing privilege. privilege does exist and is a problem. come on, people.

ultraviolet

one of the things i hate hearing has actually been said a few times on this thread - complaining about others discussing or addressing privilege. privilege does exist and is a problem. come on, people.

I understand the word privilege to mean something completely different from the way it is used on the American left today. Basically it meant having something that the majority of people didn't have. When I was young if you went to university you were privilege. That is what it meant.

I think that modern privilege theory is a completely reactionary idea whose actual function is to divide people into smaller and smaller interest groups. Class is just another point for them alongside all other oppressions. There is, however, something very different about class for communists.

What I think you get in North America with the privelege theory thing is another way for people from the sociological middle class to tell working class people to shut up and listen to them as always.

That doesn't mean that some groups don't suffer oppression. It means that I believe that privelege theory just ends up with privileged people talking down to working class people.

Devrim

Harrison

mismatched language for the situation, everything has to 'fight' this, or 'smash' that, but mostly the actual activities will tend toward going on a march or handing out a leaflet.

This x100000000.

Generally I think much of the explanation for the continued insignificance revolutionary movement, rather than its occasionally clumsy attempts to integrate survivors or folk with mental health issues ( :roll: ) - which kinda sounds like the thin end of the wedge of smoking out 'feminists' etc to be attacked - is its continued insistence on practices that are totally counter-intuitive to the lived experience of the majority of people: eg demonstrations, leaflets, one day strikes, etc.

I sometimes wonder if people are reluctant to attend these sorts of events cos they are just so fucking odd and the sort of behaviours and rituals witnessed at them are (generally) unique to that particular environment.

I realise this is paradoxical with much of the activity we all do, and i haven't really found a solution to it yet, but it's something which presses on me constantly.

Devrim

What I think you get in North America with the privelege theory thing is another way for people from the sociological middle class to tell working class people to shut up and listen to them as always.

That doesn't mean that some groups don't suffer oppression. It means that I believe that privelege theory just ends up with privileged people talking down to working class people.

Devrim

This.

Sadly it also seems to be becoming more popular in the UK now as well.

Theft

Sadly it also seems to be becoming more popular in the UK now as well.

I think that this is probably due to the common language. It doesn't seem to me to have the same resonance in Europe or the Middle East.

Devrim

Devrim #45
An excellent post.

I think I was privileged though not materially – for having parents who thought ideas were important and encouraged their children to question the status quo (not the group you bad sods).

I am peeved at folk I meet who say things like, ‘Well all true socialists/communists are anarchists at heart. These measures/tactics are only until…’
Solidarity had a terrific cartoon of someone being shot and the chap blindfolding him is saying, ‘It's only an interim measure’.

Auld-bod

Devrim #45
An excellent post.

I think I was privileged though not materially – for having parents who thought ideas were important and encouraged their children to question the status quo (not the group you bad sods)

Thanks for the kind words.

I suppose I could say something similar. One thing I am eternally grateful to for my parents is that we didn't grow up with religion in any way. If I was talking about it I would say I was 'lucky' though, not 'privileged'.

Devrim

It is funny how we use words, ‘lucky’ I seldom use, as a number of the men I’ve worked with were keen punters on the horses (though they’d say - backin’ the cuddies) and believed in ‘luck’. I’ve subconsciously equated it with ‘faith’ - an irrational belief based on wish fulfilment. ;)

Devrim

I understand the word privilege to mean something completely different from the way it is used on the American left today. Basically it meant having something that the majority of people didn't have. When I was young if you went to university you were privilege. That is what it meant.

I think that modern privilege theory is a completely reactionary idea whose actual function is to divide people into smaller and smaller interest groups. Class is just another point for them alongside all other oppressions. There is, however, something very different about class for communists.

What I think you get in North America with the privelege theory thing is another way for people from the sociological middle class to tell working class people to shut up and listen to them as always.

That doesn't mean that some groups don't suffer oppression. It means that I believe that privelege theory just ends up with privileged people talking down to working class people.

Devrim

Nailed it. And you said it far better than my usual bull-in-a-china-shoppy way.

Anything about how we have to 'reach out' to the working class. Perpetual recruitment mentality in general instead of, at least in my view, the more pressing need of workers to vastly improve the bonds and trust between each other.

I struggle with the term privilege being used in the sense discussed here.
Why would having something that EVERYONE has a natural right to, namely, good food, good housing and other material needs and respect for their race, gender etc, be considered a privilege?

Ally_S

Trigger warnings aren't there to prevent anyone from being hurt or offended. They're just that: warnings. Warnings for those people who might have a strong negative psychological reaction to the content that follows. While certainly trigger warnings can be overused and sometimes used in ways that don't make any sense, usually people only use them to be courteous and respectful of others who suffer from triggers. If you don't suffer from any psychological triggers, then the warnings don't apply to you. I mean, I've never been raped, but if I was going to link an article to a friend who happens to suffer from trauma triggers as a result of being raped, I'd make a trigger warning in a heartbeat.

Isn't the avoiding of "triggers" and hence resolution how one develops ptsd? I have ptsd and trigger warnings piss me off to no end. In fact just seeing them themselves gives me "triggers" when the subject otherwise might not. The whole thing is patronizing as hell too and is a subculture, if not cultish. More to the point:
RedEd

Maybe you've only come across trigger warnings on the periphery of where they are useful, so they seem a bit absurd. I first encountered them on message boards for people with mental health problems. Say someone was starting a thread about having trouble with self harming they'd put 'trig-SH' at the end of the thread title, and people who had self harming problems themselves and didn't want to be exposed to a lot of talk about it in case it made them want to do it more would know to avoid that thread. Same for eating disorders, suicide, things that trigger flashbacks for people with PTSD like rape, and so on. In that context it just feels normal and sensible.

Its not sensible, it is utter batshit. Its also typical of the 'self-help' 'industry' in the Anglo countries. Its like the person you find at any Narcotics Anonymous meeting who hasn't done drugs in literally 20+ years yet still attends meetings regularly because they can't move on with their lives. Wikipedia puts it best when it summarizes Alcoholics Anonymous as "Counter-Enlightenment." There is an infusion of the worst of Protestant philosophy in here that says people can't change their lot and can only find fulfillment if they accept it and better themselves within it (which is still better then it's flip side which says individual willpower will give you everything). And wouldn't the whole point of visiting a message board for mental health problems be to read about and discuss the similar experiences of others with the same problem? Why else would you go on there?

RedEd

Mike S.

Trigger warnings with descriptions of what's going to be talked about don't make sense. Example, "Trigger warning, graphic discussion concerning being burned alive in a fire". It would seem, well, if that was a trigger for someone simply reading the trigger warning would be a trigger as the trigger warning itself would bring in mental images of a person being burned alive in a fire. I just don't know about all this.

Maybe you've only come across trigger warnings on the periphery of where they are useful, so they seem a bit absurd. I first encountered them on message boards for people with mental health problems. Say someone was starting a thread about having trouble with self harming they'd put 'trig-SH' at the end of the thread title, and people who had self harming problems themselves and didn't want to be exposed to a lot of talk about it in case it made them want to do it more would know to avoid that thread. Same for eating disorders, suicide, things that trigger flashbacks for people with PTSD like rape, and so on. In that context it just feels normal and sensible.

But I can see that encountering trigger warnings only on lefty websites or whatever probably makes them seem odd, and I expect they are overused by certain people who want to show off their 'sensitive ally' credentials.

It started on feminist websites when discussion of rape would take place which is understandable but it has morphed into something different which for me signifies a certain mentality on the left which would actually run the opposite direction from any sort of future hypothetical conflict to end capitalism. I don't think we should all be tough guy patriarchal males but taking on the stereotypical erroneous female role ie sensitive, fragile, emotional, needy etc isn't any better. There are cases where a person should be warned about content but as with other aspects of our more idealist theories there's no real lines drawn and anything a person says becomes "real"- then we see trigger warnings on articles about spiders, slimy stuff, fear of holes in the ground and the color purple.

Agent of the Fifth International

Webby

I struggle with the term privilege being used in the sense discussed here.
Why would having something that EVERYONE has a natural right to, namely, good food, good housing and other material needs and respect for their race, gender etc, be considered a privilege?

Because some other people do without those things?

I think they mean privilege theory says people need to get rid of their privileges or that having these "rights" is shameful. Like when labor laws are deregulated those with the privilege of having full time jobs that they can't be fired from need to give that up for those who are chronically unemployed.

teh

Ally_S

Trigger warnings aren't there to prevent anyone from being hurt or offended. They're just that: warnings. Warnings for those people who might have a strong negative psychological reaction to the content that follows. While certainly trigger warnings can be overused and sometimes used in ways that don't make any sense, usually people only use them to be courteous and respectful of others who suffer from triggers. If you don't suffer from any psychological triggers, then the warnings don't apply to you. I mean, I've never been raped, but if I was going to link an article to a friend who happens to suffer from trauma triggers as a result of being raped, I'd make a trigger warning in a heartbeat.

Isn't the avoiding of "triggers" and hence resolution how one develops ptsd? I have ptsd and trigger warnings piss me off to no end. In fact just seeing them themselves gives me "triggers" when the subject otherwise might not. The whole thing is patronizing as hell too and is a subculture, if not cultish.

You're right that trigger warnings aren't good for everyone. But quite a few people with PTSD do appreciate these warnings. Perhaps it's better for everyone to say "content note" instead of "trigger warning," though, since the latter sounds alarmist at times and might actually be upsetting for some people who suffer from PTSD.

Because some other people do without those things?

Nah, that doesn't cut it for me - if you kick me in the nuts but don't kick my brother does that make him privileged? Course not.
Maybe I'm being pedantic but I don't think appropriating words such as this is a good idea. I'm very glad to get three good meals a day and live in a half decent house but that shouldn't be considered a privilege - to me it's the bare minimum we should all expect.

Its also typical of the 'self-help' 'industry' in the Anglo countries. Its like the person you find at any Narcotics Anonymous meeting who hasn't done drugs in literally 20+ years yet still attends meetings regularly because they can't move on with their lives.

Woah there! That's a bit one dimensional if you don't mind me saying. I left NA after 11 years as I felt I could not move on with my life in that environment but if people find a safe place and a new way to live and don't want to move on then good on 'em. Anyway, it's well documented that there are dangers associated with leaving even after decades clean. Most importantly though, if everyone leaves once they've been drug free for a while who's going to help the next fucked up addict when they walk through the door?
I recently did a run of meetings after 5 years away but found there was very little there that I wanted and due to my lack of enthusiasm there was little I had to offer but NA is just too easy to judge from the outside and it's a bit unfair.
Now, if you want to get stuck in to the devious, self serving fuckers at the World Service(snort!) office in Van Nuys, Ca, be my guest!

Harrison

I am not sure that trigger warnings are in fact the vastly threatening obstruction to the growth of the communist movement that is suggested here.

If anything I'd like to see them improved, ditching the bold caps lock exclamation marked text, in favour of a tidy recognisable graphic.

It seems to me that complaining about trigger warnings is frustration with the communist movement in general, misdirected onto issues that are not the reasons for why it is a marginal political tendency.

Lacan would be proud of your analysis there but my annoyance with trigger warnings is shared by communist and non communist "leftists" alike. We're simply pressured to either be quiet about it or to conform to the group. How does one voice their annoyance with "trigger warning culture" without sounding like an insensitive asshole? I don't know, maybe this person gets it:

http://marandaelizabeth.com/2012/12/15/my-complicated-feelings-about-trigger-warnings-and-safer-spaces/

I almost want to come up with some slogan now- "In order to abolish the state we must first abolish the trigger warning". If Bakunin came back to life this would be hist first priority. Marx may even fit it into a new edition of Capital.

Ok an example.
Once I was at work, and I had a ten minute tea break. I quickly checked my emails, expecting small things. But I had an email about a horrific situation people were trying to deal with including a sexual assault. I read the email and was horrified and very upset.
At which point the students all came back in the room, where I was sitting in a semi-trance, really freaked out and upset, and they quite legitimately wanted me to talk to them and smile at them and teach them things. Which I did, but it really would have been better all round if I'd read the email later, eg. when I got home. I think at its simplest the trigger warning works like that, you might not want to read something on the bus, or when you are about to have tea with your nan. So you can decide not to open an email, or maybe open it later.

This was such a great thread to begin with. An opportunity to discuss the regular responses that we get when putting across a radical critique of capitalist society. Instead it has turned into some bizarre esoteric discussion about a subject I had never even heard of until now and seems completely irrelevant to the original topic or, indeed, putting across a critique of capitalist society to humanity at large.

In all discussions with Leftists from now on I will make sure to add the caveat: "Trigger warning: Radical critique of capitalist society and hierarchy. Leftists may be offended and exposed to something they find dangerous, upsetting and discomforting. Flash backs to the fall of the Soviet Union or worker self-organisation may recall previously stressful experiences."

Seriously though, from the outside this seems like an unnecessary codification of a rather obvious human courtesy.

Webby

Woah there! That's a bit one dimensional if you don't mind me saying. I left NA after 11 years as I felt I could not move on with my life in that environment but if people find a safe place and a new way to live and don't want to move on then good on 'em. Anyway, it's well documented that there are dangers associated with leaving even after decades clean. Most importantly though, if everyone leaves once they've been drug free for a while who's going to help the next fucked up addict when they walk through the door?

If the other alternative is drugs then NA fulfills a positive social role but as a program it encourages people to let their drug use define them as persons beyond the level of necessity, its whole higher power greater then yourself precept while on the one hand minimizing free will doesn't address broader social causes of drug abuse (so it operates on the level of the individual), and I don't know if your night meetings were lit by candles but I personally find the whole 'we're a community/family' cringy (same thing goes for a lot of marginal political sects with their own culture). I wasnt talking about people who come to help run the program but someone who say has a depressing day and even though drug use is ancient history for them they feel the need to come to the meeting so that they can have someone to talk to (the way a Christian would go see see priest if something bothers them) and vent. There is no resolution and an- almost- identity is perpetuated.

What exactly is people's problem with trigger warnings? I really don't get this shit about them being 'coddling' or 'leading away from class conflict' or whatever. Surely they're just informative? They aren't meant to dissuade anyone from reading or seeing anything they like, they're just there to give folk a choice about what they read before they read it.

As far as privilege stuff goes, it's obviously a loaded term, but it does describe a real thing which it is useful for radicals to be able to talk about e.g. the simple fact that in a hierarchically divided society some groups are relatively better off than others. In the absence of a significant movement to challenge the fundamental basis of that society, it's often in the interests of such groups to actively maintain their relative advantages within society at the expense of oppressed groups lacking the same privileges. As anarchist communists this is an important part of the environment in which we organise, and we ignore it at our peril.

[/FULL LIBERAL DRIFT]

Anyway back on topic:

"We need a UKIP/Thatcher/Golden Dawn/etc. OF THE LEFT"

"We have to work with the tuc/labour/uaf/etc. or we will never reach THE BROADER CLASS. I mean what are we gonna do, just go talk to people?"

~J.

My auntie who always says 'You still into that new age stuff' actually this is the opposite the question. What non 'lefties' say to me that causes amusement rather than annoyance.

Sure Teh, I know exactly what you mean and don't disagree, I'm just saying its not as clear cut as you seem to think. You can have a bad day AND come to help others. That's the whole point.
Some groups are pretty cringy but so what? Just cause you and I find them cringy it doesnt make them any less valid. The idea that these incredibly self centred people can find relief from themselves by supporting others is an incredibly powerful one.
As for addressing the broader social issues, well, rightly or wrongly NA works on a 'disease' model and therefore social issues don't fit into its self appointed remit.
Did we burn candles? Did we fuck! We were fucking hardcore! We operated outside of the service structure, printed our own books, did out reaches to prisons etc. amongst our number were violent criminals, homeless people, prostitutes etc as well as academics, business people and even toffs!
This may not fit too well in to class politics, and certainly it has many flaws but if I felt I needed to go back there to save my arse I wouldn't hesitate for a fucking minute!

No shit someone green activist once told me in no uncertain terms that class was 'so single issue'

oh also "we need a new workers party"

Agent of the Fifth International

jolasmo

"We need a UKIP/Thatcher/Golden Dawn/etc. OF THE LEFT"

Slavoj Zizek. Ew.

In fact, just Zizek. Everything he says.

radicalgraffiti

oh also "we need a new workers party"

"reclaim the Labour Party"

Chilli Sauce

radicalgraffiti

oh also "we need a new workers party"

"reclaim the Labour Party"

These two phrases cut right to the heart of the utter fucking shambles that is "the left" in Britain today.

~J.

"Yeah, I once thought like you, but then I realised ..."

Nice thread by the way.

I FUCKING HATE IT WHEN LEFTIES BE TALKING IN CAT MEMES ALL THE TIME!!!!!111

- stuff like "this is to complicated for the workers" or "this will scare the workers off" ... generally used, when it comes to topics like racism, anti-semitism, environmental issues, feminism, etc.

- "defend all jobs!"

"The 1%".

Or even,

"The 99%".

Standfield

"The 1%".

Or even,

"The 99%".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club#One_percenter

Some outlaw motorcycle clubs can be distinguished by a 1% patch worn on the colors. This is claimed to be a reference to a comment made by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) in which they stated that 99% of motorcyclists were law-abiding citizens, implying that the last one percent were outlaws. As a result, some outlaw motorcycle clubs used it to unite or express themselves and are commonly referred to as "one percenters". The comment, supposedly a response to the Hollister riot in 1947, is denied by the AMA—who claim to have no record of such a statement to the press, and that the story is a misquote.

ultraviolet

I have ailurophobia so a trigger warning would be very considerate next time you feel the need to post pictures of cats. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailurophobia

fingers malone

Ok an example.
Once I was at work, and I had a ten minute tea break. I quickly checked my emails, expecting small things. But I had an email about a horrific situation people were trying to deal with including a sexual assault. I read the email and was horrified and very upset.
At which point the students all came back in the room, where I was sitting in a semi-trance, really freaked out and upset, and they quite legitimately wanted me to talk to them and smile at them and teach them things. Which I did, but it really would have been better all round if I'd read the email later, eg. when I got home. I think at its simplest the trigger warning works like that, you might not want to read something on the bus, or when you are about to have tea with your nan. So you can decide not to open an email, or maybe open it later.

I think the original usage of trigger warnings on feminist sites (or anywhere in print/text) when rape/sexual violence/violence is being discussed do hold purpose. I'm more so criticizing where that has led. I only posted one example of the absurd overuse of "trigger warning" but I can fill this thread up if needed. You have to admit placing "trigger warning" on anything that might possibly give anyone the slightest bit of discomfort is, well, silly. I don't want to live in that world. I'm pretty sure I never will accept the usage of "trigger warning" to warn people away from discussions concerning pot holes, snakes, fire, meat consumption, class issues,spiders, cats etc. Any sort of traumatic experience or phobia or dislike is now warranting "trigger warnings". Here's where my jaded insensitivity comes int play. I simply don't care about the million different fears people have unless it was trauma from physical/sexual violence.

A vegan friend of mine has pushed for trigger warnings on facebook when posts concerning food at restaurants are made. People discussing eating a good hamburger was just too much for her. We were talking about "Fuddruckers" (a crappy restaurant chain in America where you can make your own hamburger). Can't you see the absurdity in posting "trigger warning, discussion of hamburger eating".

Not everyone uses common sense but the reasoning behind using "trigger warning" does open up the door for it to be used in the manner I'm criticizing.

^ you need to get better friends

Mike S.

.

I have never come across any use of trigger warnings other than for sexual assault or severe police assaults on protesters that result in permanent injury or death.

I don't tend to hang out often with other radicals, and less so radicals with questionable politics, and as far as I am concerned the political activity of the latter does not concern me due to its sheer irrelevancy.

Perhaps because of this I am not as familiar with whatever the latest activistoid nonsense is, but in the circles that I respect, I have not seen trigger warnings used for hamburgers or someone getting a bit bruised by a police baton.

I suggest you forget bothering to engage with activistoids about political correctness gone mad, and instead ignore them.

Standfield

"The 1%".

Or even,

"The 99%".

Abso-fucking-lutely.

Re: Trigger Warning. My experience has been that they're generally only used in relation to sexual assault/PTSD, etc. However, having lived in the States, I have no doubt there are some folks who would use them to the point of absurdity (not unlike 'check your privilege'). If you've come across some of those folks, I could see how trigger warnings come to symbolize an overall annoyance to the activisty nature of much of the US anarchist scene.

But really, I don't think changing the use of trigger warnings will bring any growth to the anarchist movement. As someone has already said, if it's not relevant to the actual lives of non-politicos, no use or non-use of any particular language is going to make very big difference at all.

stuff like "I also do think that the Taliban/Putin/Ken Livingstone/etc. are problematic, but ..."

trying to convince "ordinary people/workers", that they should oppose a war because the war drains resources from the public welfare/education/etc. budget ... Hermann Gremliza, the editor of the German left-wing (and mildly "Anti-German") magazine Konkret replied during the war in Yugoslavia 1999 to a member of Linksruck (German SWP clone) who brought this argument forward that with this mindset, he could also raise the slogan "make our wars cheaper!" ... the German CP's youth org SDAJ operated during the 1980ies primarily with slogans like "apprenticeships, not weapons" which is also pretty bad

p.s.: why not start a thread "things ultra-leftists/anarchists/impossibilists/etc. say that you hate hearing all of the time"

Webby

Sure Teh, I know exactly what you mean and don't disagree, I'm just saying its not as clear cut as you seem to think. You can have a bad day AND come to help others. That's the whole point.
Some groups are pretty cringy but so what? Just cause you and I find them cringy it doesnt make them any less valid. The idea that these incredibly self centred people can find relief from themselves by supporting others is an incredibly powerful one.
As for addressing the broader social issues, well, rightly or wrongly NA works on a 'disease' model and therefore social issues don't fit into its self appointed remit.
Did we burn candles? Did we fuck! We were fucking hardcore! We operated outside of the service structure, printed our own books, did out reaches to prisons etc. amongst our number were violent criminals, homeless people, prostitutes etc as well as academics, business people and even toffs!
This may not fit too well in to class politics, and certainly it has many flaws but if I felt I needed to go back there to save my arse I wouldn't hesitate for a fucking minute!

What are toffs? Anyhow, the NA and AA programs were build around Carl Jungs theory he formulated with an alcoholic patient of his. The man, in Jungs opinion, could only live a normal life if he found god. The Bill guy from AA took that and mixed it with the Oxford Group's religious program and the twelve step recovery program was born. I think it a shame that courts sentence people to 12 step meetings. It's like forcing god on people. I'm incapable of any sort of spiritual awakening so if my alcohol intake ever gets extremely out of hand I'm screwed.

Toff is a British term for upper class/aristocracy.

I know all about the history of 12 step programs and the religious background but sometimes there is no point deconstructing things. It is what it is and for some people it works. The people that came to meetings picking the program to pieces didn't get clean.
The power of the program is impossible to understand unless you are an addict that has found recovery through it. Everything else is pretty meaningless. Addiction is not an intellectual problem but one of the spirit. On an intellectual level there are many things that can be perceived as a problem, but when I walked in the door, a broken man, I had to let go of those reservations, the result being that in less than a week my obsession with drugs was gone and has never returned. I'm just not going to argue with that result.
Of course, capital smelt blood and has hijacked NA for profit, homogenising it in the process but that wasn't the case in our group and quite a number of groups in the US. There are some very strong independent groups in Pennsylvania,Texas and many other places.
As for 'sentencing' people to 12 step programs - this is clearly fucking stupid and simply doesn't work.

Auld-bod

I like folk/bluegrass – think that makes me a closet lefty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gudJgbvBnmo

For the lol'z.

radicalgraffiti

^ you need to get better friends

Agreed. Using the cray cray antics of vegans to try and discredit things is a sure way to debase your position, IMHO.

Priv. theory - I know I had a moan about this on here (probably about a year ago now), but TBQH, since the whole 'debate' has developed more, I have found it pretty tedious (especially the 'anti-' priv. theory position which relies on sniping people for acting [or being?] too "middle class"] . I'm not convinced with either at the minute....) .

As for things that lefties say. 1. anything said through a microphone with under 80 people surrounding it. 2. 'this con-dem government'. 3. 'this government'. 4. 'vote labour with no illusions'.

Yeah, Jesus, "Con-dem". What a fucking travesty.

I hate the term impossibleism.

Also, I'll have you know that I heckled the police in a shopping centre with a mic last year. There might have only been a dozen people there for the picket, but harassing the cops with a microphone is a lot more fun.

Arbeiten

radicalgraffiti

^ you need to get better friends

Agreed. Using the cray cray antics of vegans to try and discredit things is a sure way to debase your position, IMHO.

I knew I'd eventually get goaded into doing this. Oh well.

http://fuckyeahtriggerwarnings.tumblr.com/resources
Q: “Should I use trigger warnings for common phobias"

A: Yes

Already posted this one. Just read the list.

http://privilege101.tumblr.com/triggers.html

Some one who agrees with me:

http://purplemariah.tumblr.com/post/26002096269/trigger-warnings-youre-doing-it-wrong

Hey look, another list of things we must use trigger warnings for!

http://trigger-warnings.tumblr.com/tags

Here we have a person advocating trigger warnings for "the ethics of mind reading, bad friendships and food poisoning".

http://www.anamardoll.com/2012/08/deconstruction-trigger-warnings-again.html
I feel pretty confident speaking to this one, since those "ridiculous" content notes were, in fact, ones that I came up with.

It goes on and on. It's not just a tumblr phenomenon either. Peopel are generally not sure when to apply trigger warnings so just about anything and everything is fair game now. This is what I'm criticizing. This is specifically "things leftists say that I "hate" hearing/reading all the time".

From libcom's own discussion on the topic

Ramona
Jan 15 2012 23:23

Thank you! Still unsure about exactly how/where they should be incorporated, and I didn't really explain why the specific wording is important, I know it is but not really doing so well articulating exactly why.

What Ramona said kinda points to the annoyance I have with trigger warnings. A lot of people don't seem to know how or when they should be incorporated and like a snowball trigger warnings are gaining in size and momentum and in my opinion people who use them outside of traumatic abuse are silly. I don't think trigger warnings are 100% useless and absurd I think I'm tiered of reading them where they shouldn't be used. The whole issue then becomes "who am I to say when and where trigger warnings can't be used". Some people are advocating them for single words. Dick, vagina, sex, blood etc.

*throws hands in the air, walks away from discussion*

Perhaps there should be trigger warnings about trigger warnings.

Mike S. #92

Good stuff. :lol:

My answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR7fBCENkN0

I totally get what people are saying about trigger warnings - some of this shit is well OTT, but there definitely is a use for this. Just because a bunch of morons have hijacked an idea it doesn't mean that idea should be surrendered.
A bit of common sense and sensitivity is what's required here. People with issues shouldn't be wrapped in cotton wool but what stage they are at in dealing with their issue needs to be considered. If someone is a few weeks clean from drugs for instance, a warning of graphic drug use could make the difference between them staying clean and using.
It's easy to apply this to any given situation without overdoing it.
Don't let the idiots win!

Webby

A bit of common sense and sensitivity is what's required here. People with issues shouldn't be wrapped in cotton wool but what stage they are at in dealing with their issue needs to be considered.

As this is the internet we're talking about there will be people in all possible stages reading our posts sooner or later. The posts most likely aren't going away.

As this is the internet we're talking about there will be people in all possible stages reading our posts sooner or later. The posts most likely aren't going away.

I think my point is valid, I was talking about the arguement that has been put forward about exposure being healthier than hiding from things but Cooked brings up a valid point also - how is it possible to be sensitive without putting a blanket over everything that may cause problems?
I suppose it's up to the individual whether they take heed of a warning but you would still need to smother the site with trigger warnings and too many of them would seriously devalue them.
Solutions anyone?

I think for trigger warnings to be useful we should try to establish some approximate consensus when they should be used and when they shouldn't. Of course this can only be a vague approximation, since the triggers a person associates with trauma are very specific to their experience AFAIK. The most common causes of PTSD are rape and other sexual violence, child abuse/neglect, combat and other war experience, physical attacks. Perhaps trigger warnings should generally be restricted to descriptions of such forms of violence?
(sorry to be OT)

I've seen people use them for self harm and suicide and I think that's a good idea.

I think in addition to trigger warnings on written stuff there is also an issue on facebook when people share articles and images from the article automatically end up in their friends timeline. This can include pretty horrific images, such as as the stories about the homophobic torture and murder in Russia, birth defects caused by depleted uranium, or the case of US soldiers gang raping a 14 year old Iraqi and murdering her and her family.

One problem I see with trigger warnings is that they have the explicit purpose of protecting vulnerable people. This has the effect of separating those people from the rest of the world. This makes it easy for people who don't feel they need trigger warnings to ridicule them and by implication they ridicule people who feel they do need them.

Perhaps a better approach would be to aim for a more neutral approach to indicating content. Tagging is a great example. It is in everyone's interest to know what they are about to access before it is accessed as it saves time. The function of trigger warnings could be innocuously absorbed into systems like tagging. I don't see how anyone could complain about a rape or spiders tag, if it was simply indicative of content. Then it's in the reader's hands how such content indicators are used.

dp

Actually, I really like folk, bluegrass and what my nearest and dearest describe as my "redneck banjo music." Honestly, what's not to love about this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIYNoH99Guc

Honestly, what's not to love about this?:

Er, where do I start?! Nah, just joshing. I would have hated this when I was young but nowadays the simplicity and lack of pretension are quite charming. It really feels like he is speaking to you directly.
When I was young I would have hated my last sentence even more than the music!

Pikel

One problem I see with trigger warnings is that they have the explicit purpose of protecting vulnerable people. This has the effect of separating those people from the rest of the world. This makes it easy for people who don't feel they need trigger warnings to ridicule them and by implication they ridicule people who feel they do need them.

The solution to that is for people who don't feel they need trigger warnings to not be insensitive assholes to people who do feel they need such warnings. Simple. I agree that tagging is a good idea, though.

Sorry to be so insensitive to the people that hate trigger warnings, but: Trigger warnings get a thumbs up from me because they provide far more to the people they are supposed to benefit than they detract from the enjoyment of life of those who find them a bit irksome (and then, only in some cases).

I don't buy the notion that trigger warnings separate those that need them from the rest of the world - at least not in the sense I'm understanding that- because what a person clicks on on the internet isn't publicised in any way. A trigger warning doesn't necessarily even stop a sufferer from viewing certain material; we can imagine that in various rhythms of a person's mood they might find themselves at some times feeling they possess what it takes to read or watch the material with the trigger warning in an attempt to overcome their problems but at their own pace. Ironically, I think that making a big hubbub about trigger warnings is what will serve to truly alienate those who benefit from them

Lol, I'm sorry Mike. I find it slightly amusing that your getting so hyped up about this. Honestly people putting TW before something has, up to this point in time, not affected my life in the slightest. While for others they have been really helpful (as fingers points out above). Your always going to get dickheads in the world that take something to far, your vegan mate is an example. But all this reductio ad absurdum is getting a bit, well, absurd.

Pikel

One problem I see with trigger warnings is that they have the explicit purpose of protecting vulnerable people. This has the effect of separating those people from the rest of the world.

I might have agreed with this, had I seen how they are used in practice. It's just a small warning that the shit you might be reading next is going to put you in a place where you might not want to be. Most of the time this means people carry on reading the stuff, but don't go into it empty handed, so to speak.

Kureigo-san, it doesn't matter that users of TWs aren't public. People criticise TWs on the same forum where users of TWs are active. The separation is real, it exists in the minds of both camps, it may not be directed at individuals but it is directed at categories of people to which individuals feel they belong.

I moderate another forum, part of a drugs harm reduction site. One of our members requested we put a trigger warning on a thread about suicide. I did so. She and the warning were ruthlessly ridiculed. This is what I'm talking about.* I actually joined in by putting trigger warnings on a load of threads (like TRIGGER WARNING: GOSSIP). I think it's a horribly crude mechanism, so inelegant.

* edit: actually that's not what I'm talking about as she "went pubic" but it exemplifies the ridicule and it's unpleasant effects

So, I just taken this from another thread, but this,

Agent of the Fifth International

Lots of Marx's writing is fun to read.

NO, IT FUCKING ISN'T FUN AND IF YOU SAY MARX IS FUN TO READ, YOUR A CULTIST.

Ha!

Pikel, that would fall under the banner of "I think that making a big hubbub about trigger warnings is what will serve to truly alienate those who benefit from them". Your anecdote demonstrates no inherent problem with trigger warnings - only that y'all acted with cruelty and belligerence over nothing.

TW: Not a serious post.

Agent of the Fifth International

If you say none of Marx's writing is fun to read, then your part of the much bigger cult who always complain about Marx's writing being "long, tedious and boring, so I don't need to go through all of that crap. Popper is good enough". If Marx ain't fun, then who's fun? Is Karl Popper fun?

Mate, you got this all topsy tervy, like hegel standing on his head (one for the lads, that one). I have read a lot of Marx* (and a few popper books too, actually) and it is not fun. Sometimes I think this Marx boy cultishness is the biggest barrier to marxism**, tbqh. Reading marx bleat on about linen and coats for 50 odd pages is no definition of fun as I understand it.

* Capital Vol.2 is a barren wasteland. Probably one of the most dull things I have ever read.

** Obviously this post was supposed to be a bit of fun [sic], but your attitude is really telling, I think at least. A dry belligerent defensiveness if anyone dare blaspheme against the doctrine (I haven't even said anything substantial against marx, just that it isn't 'fun' to read!!).

Kureigo-San

Pikel, that would fall under the banner of "I think that making a big hubbub about trigger warnings is what will serve to truly alienate those who benefit from them". Your anecdote demonstrates no inherent problem with trigger warnings - only that y'all acted with cruelty and belligerence over nothing.

Yeah, sorry P, but your post just read like plain old fashion bullying to me....

People bully each other horrendously on the internet, over the most pathetic things, but really it still stands-up as far as I am concerned. A TW is for those who may be 'triggered', not dickheads on the internet who will mercilessly take the piss out of people over the smallest issues.

dp

Arbeiten

Reading marx bleat on about linen and coats for 50 odd pages is no definition of fun as I understand it...

* Capital Vol.2 is a barren wasteland. Probably one of the most dull things I have ever read.

As I was reading this I pictured your comment in the back cover of Capital Vol. 2; hilarious.

"Cops are people too..."

"Using violence against nazis makes you just as bad as them..."

"We use elections just as a platform for spreading revolutionary politics..."

"All this talk of delegates and mandates is just liberal fetishism, people don't want to hear us arguing about all this stuff, they want to see action and leadership!!"

Arbeiten

Yeah, sorry P, but your post just read like plain old fashion bullying to me....

People bully each other horrendously on the internet, over the most pathetic things, but really it still stands-up as far as I am concerned. A TW is for those who may be 'triggered', not dickheads on the internet who will mercilessly take the piss out of people over the smallest issues.

Oh absolutely, I know that. But bullying exists, and will for a long time, so it's worth accepting that and minimising the opportunities for it to happen. I can try to train my forum members, doesn't work very well, and I can censor posts, that doesn't work well either because moderators are not omnipresent while members are, and also because a large number of people, including me, are against censorship. So I'm just being pragmatic.

Kureigo-San

Pikel, that would fall under the banner of "I think that making a big hubbub about trigger warnings is what will serve to truly alienate those who benefit from them". Your anecdote demonstrates no inherent problem with trigger warnings - only that y'all acted with cruelty and belligerence over nothing.

Well, of course, how can there be an inherent problem with the use of a phrase? It's only when the phrase is exposed to real people and they react to it that a problem can exist, it's always people that cause problems, not the use of phrases. But it's hard to change people's behaviour, while it's easy to implement a software system.

Pikel

I moderate another forum, part of a drugs harm reduction site. One of our members requested we put a trigger warning on a thread about suicide. I did so. She and the warning were ruthlessly ridiculed. This is what I'm talking about.* I actually joined in by putting trigger warnings on a load of threads (like TRIGGER WARNING: GOSSIP). I think it's a horribly crude mechanism, so inelegant.

Are you kidding me? Who cares if it's "crude" and "inelegant?" Elegance is not an important feature of trigger warnings; helpfulness is. The only people who deserve blame are the ones who decided to be total jerks to that woman who asked for the trigger warning. That people actually thought it was okay to ridicule and shame someone for wanting to make the reading less mentally distressful for herself (and presumably others as well) is beyond appalling.

By the way Agent, I think you need an insight into the dark evil workings of the Arbeiten, which is that he is a closet Marx/Deleuze/Fanon/Foucault other obscure thinkers supernerd but tries to pass for just a casual anarchie ;)

I heard he wants the Grundrisse read out in full at his funeral, whilst lemmy from motorhead does a 13 hour bass solo over the top, (just what i heard)

Ally_S

Pikel

I moderate another forum, part of a drugs harm reduction site. One of our members requested we put a trigger warning on a thread about suicide. I did so. She and the warning were ruthlessly ridiculed. This is what I'm talking about.* I actually joined in by putting trigger warnings on a load of threads (like TRIGGER WARNING: GOSSIP). I think it's a horribly crude mechanism, so inelegant.

Are you kidding me? Who cares if it's "crude" and "inelegant?" Elegance is not an important feature of trigger warnings; helpfulness is. The only people who deserve blame are the ones who decided to be total jerks to that woman who asked for the trigger warning. That people actually thought it was okay to ridicule and shame someone for wanting to make the reading less mentally distressful for herself (and presumably others as well) is beyond appalling.

:confused: Information can be both useful and elegantly presented. It would be an important feature insofar as it would make it accepted. What's wrong with that?

And I agree the behaviour is poor. Appalling is a little strong for me. I don't throw words like that about easily. So, please tell me how to stop the behaviour. I can give you a link to the site, if you want, and you can come and have a chat about it?

Pikel

Ally_S

Pikel

I moderate another forum, part of a drugs harm reduction site. One of our members requested we put a trigger warning on a thread about suicide. I did so. She and the warning were ruthlessly ridiculed. This is what I'm talking about.* I actually joined in by putting trigger warnings on a load of threads (like TRIGGER WARNING: GOSSIP). I think it's a horribly crude mechanism, so inelegant.

Are you kidding me? Who cares if it's "crude" and "inelegant?" Elegance is not an important feature of trigger warnings; helpfulness is. The only people who deserve blame are the ones who decided to be total jerks to that woman who asked for the trigger warning. That people actually thought it was okay to ridicule and shame someone for wanting to make the reading less mentally distressful for herself (and presumably others as well) is beyond appalling.

:confused: Information can be both useful and elegantly presented. It would be an important feature insofar as it would make it accepted. What's wrong with that?

And I agree the behaviour is poor. Appalling is a little strong for me. I don't throw words like that about easily. So, please tell me how to stop the behaviour. I can give you a link to the site, if you want, and you can come and have a chat about it?

I've seen many people accept trigger warnings just fine, even people who don't suffer from triggers, and I don't hear a single argument about whether the warnings need to be more "elegant" in presentation. Their acceptance of such warnings, as far as I can tell, depends entirely on their empathy for people who suffer from triggers.

There's nothing wrong with a message being conveyed in an elegant manner, but you're focusing on something that's completely unimportant with respect to people shaming and ridiculing those who find trigger warnings helpful.

And I used the word "appalling" because making fun of someone who wants to be able to avoid triggers more easily is extremely reprehensible, especially given how much such a person already has to go through.

Ally_S

I've seen many people accept trigger warnings just fine, even people who don't suffer from triggers, and I don't hear a single argument about whether the warnings need to be more "elegant" in presentation. Their acceptance of such warnings, as far as I can tell, depends entirely on their empathy for people who suffer from triggers.

There's nothing wrong with a message being conveyed in an elegant manner, but you're focusing on something that's completely unimportant with respect to people shaming and ridiculing those who find trigger warnings helpful.

And I used the word "appalling" because making fun of someone who wants to be able to avoid triggers more easily is extremely reprehensible, especially given how much such a person already has to go through.

That you've seen TWs accepted does not change the fact that I've seen them ridiculed. You have heard an argument about their presentation, from me. Yes lack of empathy is part of it but I have no mechanism for changing that, I suppose I could send out MDMA to people but that is a very short term solution.

My suggestion is relevant in that it might allow general acceptance of a trigger warning mechanism immediately, with a straightforward technical implementation. And it would not highlight the differences between people, but rather their common interest in knowing what content is before they access it.

Perhaps we can agree to differ on use of language, that really is a side-issue.

just for the record, my earlier lenin-lol-cat about trigger warnings wasn't meant as a swipe at those who need them. it was just an excuse to liberate lenin cat out of his isolation on the lenin cat thread. and an excuse to make a swipe at the libcommissar. :p i think trigger warnings are useful and until this thread had no idea there was any controversy about them.

Pikel

So, please tell me how to stop the behaviour.

your tagging idea is a really good one. people should not be bullies. but since you can't really control bullying, i'd say tagging is the way to go.

(and i don't think appalling is an outlandish word for the bullying. it depends on what you find appalling, but it's appalling to me, given the context you described. it was kicking someone while they're down, and being appalled is the proper reaction to that sort of thing. not trying to sound above you, i've behaved appallingly in the past. actually i just yesterday sent an apology letter to someone i bullied when we were teens.)

Ethos

Arbeiten

Reading marx bleat on about linen and coats for 50 odd pages is no definition of fun as I understand it...

* Capital Vol.2 is a barren wasteland. Probably one of the most dull things I have ever read.

As I was reading this I pictured your comment in the back cover of Capital Vol. 2; hilarious.

ethos, this was hillarious. five stars!

Agent of the Fifth International

If you say none of Marx's writing is fun to read, then your part of the much bigger cult who always complain about Marx's writing being "long, tedious and boring, so I don't need to go through all of that crap."

i'm queen of this cult. but seriously, i think it's cool that you find marx fun. it makes me smile when people get all geeked out about things i find boring. takes all kinds of people to make the world. if it weren't for people's geeky interest in things that are weird and (for most people) boring, humans wouldn't have made a tenth of the amazing discoveries and inventions that we have. it's people like you who can help the rest of us understand marx better. :)

Agent of the Fifth International

Is Karl Popper fun?

my grandma said he was fun in bed.

Agent of the Fifth International

Is John Stuart Mill fun?

would have to ask my great great gran about that one.

Appalling: Yes it is bad but I've seen and heard about much worse things, like murders and rapes, so I reserve "appalling" for those! I guess genocide is extremely appalling ;)

Harrison

By the way Agent, I think you need an insight into the dark evil workings of the Arbeiten, which is that he is a closet Marx/Deleuze/Fanon/Foucault other obscure thinkers supernerd but tries to pass for just a casual anarchie ;)

I heard he wants the Grundrisse read out in full at his funeral, whilst lemmy from motorhead does a 13 hour bass solo over the top, (just what i heard)

All of this is, of course, true. I am a closet pointy-head which bullies other pointy-heads to make my cone look smaller.

As for my funeral, I want the longest most pretentious Sunn0))) track imaginable to be played on repeat while someone screams Nietzsche aphorisms at random. Naked. :groucho:

Arbeiten

Harrison

By the way Agent, I think you need an insight into the dark evil workings of the Arbeiten, which is that he is a closet Marx/Deleuze/Fanon/Foucault other obscure thinkers supernerd but tries to pass for just a casual anarchie ;)

I heard he wants the Grundrisse read out in full at his funeral, whilst lemmy from motorhead does a 13 hour bass solo over the top, (just what i heard)

All of this is, of course, true. I am a closet pointy-head which bullies other pointy-heads to make my cone look smaller.

As for my funeral, I want the longest most pretentious Sunn0))) track imaginable to be played on repeat while someone screams Nietzsche aphorisms at random. Naked. :groucho:

People make mental note that it will infact be Susan Boyle at said funeral.

"Class collaboration isn't always wrong" in response to WW2 being a inter-imperialist war.

"I smell a Bordigist here" I was called out today :oops:

Me "I'm not a Bordigist." them "They all say that."

By some of the peoples standards in this thread there should be a trigger warning on this post:

http://libcom.org/blog/police-attack-queers-during-stockholm-pride-parade-08082013

Mike S. single handedly taking down the trigger warning conspiracy,

I have exhausted rational argument, and if I didn't enjoy being morally superior, I would move on to insults just about here.

yeah, not on the level of murder and rape (obviously!).

in my definition, something appalling is the kind of thing that's demoralizing and upsetting just to witness, even if you're not the victim, because it makes you shake your head and think "damn it, what's wrong with people..." that's how i felt when i read your post describing what happened.

suicide is not an uncommon trigger, and with potentially life threatening consequences. a request for a TW for a thread about suicide resulting in a torrent of cyber bullying... yeah, it gave me that demoralized "what's wrong with people" reaction.

but i admire you for openly telling about it here, and seeking advice for a practical solution to what you recognize to be a serious problem. again, i think that your tagging idea is the way to go.

it's harder to have empathy over the internet. i bet most of the people who did the cyber bullying of the person who requested the suicide TW would not do anything like that in person, because they'd feel too bad about it.

Arbeiten

As for my funeral, I want the longest most pretentious Sunn0))) track imaginable to be played on repeat while someone screams Nietzsche aphorisms at random. Naked.

Personally I'm thinking someone playing the subtleties of the commodity through interpretative dance, scored by R Kelly. At the end they get rushed by some RMT members with those massive blow up hammers from thorpe park.

Arbeiten

Mike S. single handedly taking down the trigger warning conspiracy,

I'm on it

Pikel

That you've seen TWs accepted does not change the fact that I've seen them ridiculed. You have heard an argument about their presentation, from me. Yes lack of empathy is part of it but I have no mechanism for changing that, I suppose I could send out MDMA to people but that is a very short term solution.

My suggestion is relevant in that it might allow general acceptance of a trigger warning mechanism immediately, with a straightforward technical implementation. And it would not highlight the differences between people, but rather their common interest in knowing what content is before they access it.

You misunderstood me - I'm not disputing the fact that you have seen trigger warnings ridiculed. I mean, I've seen the ridicule myself before. All I was saying is that I have seen empathy to be, at the very least, a far more significant factor in accepting trigger warnings than whether those warnings are elegantly presented.

An issue like this isn't something one person can solve by hirself. There is no "mechanism" to make people suddenly more empathetic and sensitive. Rather, this problem is part of a larger cultural problem that discourages sensitivity in many contexts. Hence why the focus should be on those jerks who bully and shame people who need trigger warnings, not the people who need the warnings. Granted, this whole problem can be averted by using those tags you suggested (which is a decent idea in my view). But at the same time, your suggestion lets insensitive jerks off the hook even though that's not your intention. Those people should learn to respect those differences you speak of, not use them as an excuse to behave reprehensibly towards others. Just because trigger warnings highlight differences between groups doesn't mean that those differences can't or shouldn't be respected.

Mike S.'s example article (police attacking queers in Stockholm) is actually a good example of something where a trigger warning is useful and warranted. It contains graphic descriptions of homophobic and transphobic police violence. One can reasonably suspect that survivors of such (or police violence or homophobic/transphobic violence in general) may be in a space where reading it may trigger them, in the sense that it's used in the mental health field: set off someone's PTSD. Now of course, many survivors of such violence aren't going to be triggered by it. The details are a significant part of what makes the piece effective, so just forewarning people so they can make their own decisions is more than reasonable. Trigger Warning: food poisoning this is not.

Webby

Sure Teh, I know exactly what you mean and don't disagree, I'm just saying its not as clear cut as you seem to think. You can have a bad day AND come to help others. That's the whole point.
Some groups are pretty cringy but so what? Just cause you and I find them cringy it doesnt make them any less valid. The idea that these incredibly self centred people can find relief from themselves by supporting others is an incredibly powerful one.
As for addressing the broader social issues, well, rightly or wrongly NA works on a 'disease' model and therefore social issues don't fit into its self appointed remit.
Did we burn candles? Did we fuck! We were fucking hardcore! We operated outside of the service structure, printed our own books, did out reaches to prisons etc. amongst our number were violent criminals, homeless people, prostitutes etc as well as academics, business people and even toffs!
This may not fit too well in to class politics, and certainly it has many flaws but if I felt I needed to go back there to save my arse I wouldn't hesitate for a fucking minute!

Fair enough

Ally_S

I've seen many people accept trigger warnings just fine, even people who don't suffer from triggers, and I don't hear a single argument about whether the warnings need to be more "elegant" in presentation. Their acceptance of such warnings, as far as I can tell, depends entirely on their empathy for people who suffer from triggers.

This implies that people who suffer from stressor events support trigger warnings on content or that people who don't have PTSD and a minority or a majority who do speak for all people with stressors. Its important because avoidance behavior leads to PTSD and is a symptom of it. Reinforcing pathological behavior is not how to treat ailments (and most importantly certainly not with such a broad brush). And trigger warnings might be limited to obscure websites right now but there is no reason why -based on their internal logic- they shouldn't and won't be spread to all websites, books, and newspapers. Seeing content warnings everywhere is not how adults should be treated.

teh

.... avoidance behavior leads to PTSD and is a symptom of it. Reinforcing pathological behavior is not how to treat ailments ...

people should be in control of when and where they decide to expose themselves to potentially triggering material. i know exposure therapy can be helpful for ptsd and certain anxiety-disorders, but it's done in a careful, gradually escalating way, and it puts the individual in full control of how far and fast they want to progress, preferably under the guidance of therapist.

trigger warnings allow for this personal control. not having warning of what's to come, not having choice, and suddenly being thrust into things you're not ready for, is not the way to heal.

trigger warnings doesn't mean "must avoid", they're warnings that allow you to decide for yourself if you want to proceed.

also, avoidance behavior leads to ptsd? it's trauma that leads to ptsd. avoidance behavior is a symptom, sure, but a cause? never heard that. and the avoidance behavior is actually a secondary symptom of the primary symptom (a sudden flood of awful emotions). it's a pretty rational response to that primary symptom.

And that TV show, 'Undercover Millionaires'. Yuck.

We have a show over here called 'undercover Boss'. After going incognito and getting down with the workers the boss then calls certain employees to head office to pat them on the back for being good workers and give them a reward.
This week the tight bastard awarded a worker vouchers to the value of £250 for putting up with leering drunks making a pass at her when working nightshiift in a gambling arcade. Vouchers for fucks sake, not even cash! The saddest thing was though, that she was really grateful!

progressive inhabitants of white settler states or former colonial powers who focus mainly on three topics: 1. Zionism, 2. Palestine, 3. BDS

Thinking about it, we have The Secret Millionaire too - poor person made good goes back to the hood, sticks their nose in the lives of the deprived, cries a bit, writes a few cheques and then fucks off back to a posh part of London while the production team sets to work editing to make it look like the millionaire is a really great guy. Quality viewing.

The saddest thing was though, that she was really grateful!

Honestly trying not to be a dick Webby, but some of your posts are just so bothersome I feel compelled to let loose, and its going to be quite dickish.

This behaviour you seem to despise so much was likely undertaken to, you know, keep ones job. I can't count how many times I've failed to be all hardcore when standing tall before the man. Crossing your arms and shaking your disappointed head at her? For fuck sakes.

/edited to be less dickish

Mate, you've totally misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't disappointed in her at all. I said it was sad because she goes through that shit daily yet is so poorly paid that a few lousy vouchers are so important to her.
I appreciate that you edited your post, so thanks but I did see the pre-edited version and the fact that I'm a (reluctant) landlord is obviously affecting your judgement of my views which is a shame. The only person that I judged in my post was the boss that I called a tight bastard. The only behaviour I despised was his. The only thing I despised about her is what she has to put up with to make a living which I am well aware is NOT HER FAULT.
If my other posts are bothersome then fair enough - maybe I am sometimes biased against my own class, but my views have changed and still are changing drastically after 30 years of being an individualist dickhead so give me a break eh?

Webby

Mate, you've totally misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't disappointed in her at all. I said it was sad because she goes through that shit daily yet is so poorly paid that a few lousy vouchers are so important to her.

You may of tried to say that, but you failed. You said that her behaviour was the thing that was sad, not her conditions. . .

Don't put it on me dude, you're the one misrepresenting yourself.

I appreciate that you edited your post, so thanks but I did see the pre-edited version and the fact that I'm a (reluctant) landlord is obviously affecting your judgement of my views which is a shame.

Actually, I would of been peeved by that post no matter who you were. Perhaps it makes you feel better to boil this down to me not liking your landlordery, which is still your choice mate, but ultimately, it was removed because it was just a particularly shit-headed thing for me to throw in there. Sorry I was being such a shit. As discussed over PM, I'm still actively trying to make my internet dealings healthy and helpful instead of my usual shit-headedness.

Ok, I hear what you're saying but I also try not to be a dick on Libcom and I try to be honest about myself. It would be easy to create a persona that fits in around here but it would also be pointless.
And yes, I am often frustrated with my own class - that's not a choice, it's just how I feel. I certainly don't set out to give offence but if I do I am sorry for it. We've all got our own natural disposition and our own experiences - you know fuck all about me and vice-versa. An, fuck it, I can't even figure out how to say what I mean. Look, no offence was meant, and still don't quite understand why it was taken but I have enough humility to accept that I may have fucked up.

Kureigo-San

Pikel, that would fall under the banner of "I think that making a big hubbub about trigger warnings is what will serve to truly alienate those who benefit from them". Your anecdote demonstrates no inherent problem with trigger warnings - only that y'all acted with cruelty and belligerence over nothing.

cruelty and belligerence. ya.

"You're being sectarian"... based on the bizarre assumption that we are somehow on the same side as leninists, trotskyists, maoists, some left-wing rump of the Labour Party, etc.

Mind you, much the same applies to various strands of anarchism, e.g. radical liberals, anarcho-pacifists, yer anarcho-[insert religion or subculture here] folk, identity politicos posing as anarchists, "class is an identity" anarchists, or just some naughty kids posing as ninjas or insurrectionists.

Hmm... now I think about it, I suppose I prefer the leninists :O

(Attention Pikel and anyone else interested.)

OK! Here's an improved idea for trigger warnings on the forum you moderate, Pikel. Also would be useful on Libcom.

The tagging idea is good in that it makes there less likely to be bullying. But many people (myself included) don't bother to tag posts when the option is available, and when I do tag I find it annoying and tedious to try to figure out all the different tags that apply to my post.

So instead there should be "trigger tags", which means that each post has space for providing tags, but there is brief instructions saying to only insert tags for any material you think might be upsetting or triggering to certain people. This means that most posts won't require any tagging at all, and when you do need to put a tag, you only have to list one or two things, and don't have to worry about listing every topic that relates to your post.

If individuals make posts with likely triggering content, and forget to fill out the trigger tags, the moderators can add them in. Or people can make requests to mods to add in tags for a post they think might be triggering. (Maybe there can be a little icon to click on that alerts the mods, like when flagging a post as spam, but this isn't necessary.)

This will hopefully make trigger warnings more normalized and get people in the habit of thinking about the potential triggers of others and developing awareness of and sensitivity to that. And since they're tags, they're less IN YOUR FACE than trigger warnings that appear in titles or in bold font at the top of a post.

bozemananarchy

You may of tried to say that, but you failed. You said that her behaviour was the thing that was sad, not her conditions. . .

i actually thought her behavior was sad, too. not sad as in "oh, how pathetic that she didn't tell her boss to go shove it! where's her class consciousness?" but sad because she's probably so used to taking shit and getting nothing in return that when she does get a small reward for taking shit, she's happy and grateful. i don't think this makes her an idiot or anything. another example that parallels this is someone who came from an abusive family and then gets into a relationship where they aren't abused but are still not treated so good, yet they feel that this is as good as they deserve and are so lucky. their behavior makes you sad, because it shows you that true respect is so alien to their experience.

back to things we hate lefties saying...

"the demo/meeting/workshop/event will be at 3pm on wednesday."

never mind that the majority of working people will be at their jobs and unable to attend.

i don't see how tags could replace warnings, they are usually at the bottom, they don't show up when only the title is displayed, they don't show up when the link is posted some where else.
I could see they could be useful some where like tumblr where i think some people use addons to filter content they see, but as a replacement to putting a warning about content at the top they just wont work

radicalgraffiti

i don't see how tags could replace warnings, they are usually at the bottom,

good point, but there's no reason the tags couldn't be put at the top of the article or top of the thread. (and they'd have to be put there to be effective.)

radicalgraffiti

they don't show up when only the title is displayed, they don't show up when the link is posted some where else.

that's true. but if they're moved to the top, if someone clicks on the link, they will see the tags and be warned before beginning to read.

ultraviolet

i actually thought her behavior was sad, too. not sad as in "oh, how pathetic that she didn't tell her boss to go shove it! where's her class consciousness?" but sad because she's probably so used to taking shit and getting nothing in return that when she does get a small reward for taking shit, she's happy and grateful.

Point taken you two, however. . .

It still seems pretty damned awkward and cringe-worthy to be like, "ohh, how sad. . ." when someone is grateful for a small material reward. I'm sure if you and Webby took inventory, you'd probably find similar behaviours in your own lives. If that is the case, maybe you should express something more close to understanding/solidarity rather than, what I can't help but understand as, benevolent sympathy from afar.

bozemananarchy

I'm sure if you and Webby took inventory, you'd probably find similar behaviours in your own lives.

for sure.
bozemananarchy

If that is the case, maybe you should express something more close to understanding/solidarity rather than, what I can't help but understand as, benevolent sympathy from afar.

oh, i see where you're coming from. a lot of people view feeling sad for others as condescending. personally, i've always appreciated when others have recognized instances of my suffering and felt sad for me about it, and i've not found that sympathy to be condescending. in fact i think feeling sad about the plight of others is compatible with solidarity, and encourages it. i'm pro-sympathy.

that isn't to say sadness for others can never be condescending. but it surely isn't inherently so.

ultraviolet

oh, i see where you're coming from now. a lot of people view feeling sad for others as condescending. personally, i've always appreciated when others have recognized instances of my suffering and felt sad for me about it, and i've not found that sympathy to be condescending. in fact i think feeling sad about the plight of others is compatible with solidarity, and encourages it. i'm pro-sympathy.

Perhaps a specific cultural/upbringing way of thinking is why I'm being a jerk on this thread then?

It has been my experience that more often then not, sympathy comes off as vertical, benevolent paternalism (Kony 2012) rather then horizontal solidarity. I think this is the case in larger global affairs as well as individual interactions.

Holy shit! All these different angles!

I'm a pretty simple person and when i saw this young women's plight I just thought ,that's a real shame.
Boze has made me think as I don't remember being in this situation having been relatively well paid for quite a long time and previously was really a drop out who found, ahem, alternative forms of income, but I don't think I was looking down with lofty benevolence.
I just put this down as all being a bit of a mix up and misunderstanding.

Webby

Holy shit! All these different angles!

I'm a pretty simple person and when i saw this young women's plight I just thought ,that's a real shame.
Boze has made me think as I don't remember being in this situation having been relatively well paid for quite a long time and previously was really a drop out who found, ahem, alternative forms of income, but I don't think I was looking down with lofty benevolence.
I just put this down as all being a bit of a mix up and misunderstanding.

I take your word for it Webby, I'm dropping it. Sorry I brought it up.

Well, like UV tried to do, lets bring it back to the topic at hand;

Calling US right-wingers "repubtards" or "conservatards"

"well, in 1917..."

A liberal describing any policy they are for as, "getting tough on [insert whatever]".

Uh no, you ain't getting tough on shit.

We need more women in government, which feeds into when Hillary is president, everything's going to be wonderful.
This is a close cousin of we need more women in top jobs in industry, why aren't there 50% women representation in the boardrooms?

Things that non anarchists say all the time...

All of the questions in this song. The answer is the only correct one.

http://youtu.be/N2quipgJT3Y

some stuff you often hear from a certain kind of "peace activists"/"third world solidarity group activists": " ... concepts like human rights are sooooo European/Western, therefor, we shouldn't bother about ... "

ultraviolet

trigger warnings allow for this personal control. not having warning of what's to come, not having choice, and suddenly being thrust into things you're not ready for, is not the way to heal.

Its not personal control and choice if there is a presupposition that people with PTSD need to avoid certain subjects. The framework of choices has already been decided beforehand. Take what you said about aversion therapy and apply it to avoiding of stressors: "it's done in a careful, gradually escalating way, and it puts the individual in full control of how far and fast they want to progress, preferably under the guidance of therapist." Not: relevant parties should want to avoid certain subjects.

also, avoidance behavior leads to ptsd? it's trauma that leads to ptsd. avoidance behavior is a symptom, sure, but a cause? never heard that.

Trauma is a regular event in life and rarely leads to ptsd. Ptsd is the compulsive behavior to relive the traumatic event and random associative factors. Attempting to repress mentally what happened and not coming to peace with what happened plays a role.

fleurnoire-et-rouge

This is a close cousin of we need more women in top jobs in industry, why aren't there 50% women representation in the boardrooms?

I'd be interested of hearing communist opinions on [Idi Aminesque] "more female managers" and the sort.

teh

Trauma is a regular event in life and rarely leads to ptsd. Ptsd is the compulsive behavior to relive the traumatic event and random associative factors. Attempting to repress mentally what happened and not coming to peace with what happened plays a role.

Trigger warnings are not there for the sake of helping someone repress distressful thoughts and not come to peace with what happened to hir. It's about giving such a person more agency.

Also, maybe I'm not reading this right, but I don't see anything about having people PTSD unexpectedly suffer from triggers being a way to help them. Not here, at least: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.shtml

And I should note that I have also only heard of avoidance behavior being a symptom rather than a cause. The link above seems to give credence to that view, too.

Liberal friend: We need unions to keep capitalism in check.
Me: Don't you think there's something wrong with an economic system that needs to be "kept in check"?
Liberal friend: It ain't a problem unless you got a solution.
Me: Well actually people have had solutions for this problem for a long time for example-
Liberal friend: You're just naive/utopian/young. Also, they already tried socialism in Cuba, USSR, China, Korea, etc.
Me: FML.

"How many working class people are there in your group?"

Or, in a debate, to "undermine" someone's position:

"Are you a worker?"

Agent of the Fifth International

So, long story short, we got ourselves an anthropological introduction to the world of leftist politics.

Theres a book ready to be written about this. The radical lefts failure, in part its inability not to destroy itself through endless arguments about language, 'privilege' and its incessant need to search for violent signifiers in every utterance.

teh

Its not personal control and choice if there is a presupposition that people with PTSD need to avoid certain subjects.

Again, I just don't get why people think trigger warnings are there to try and dissuade or prevent anyone from reading anything. Literally the only people who I've ever seen assume this are people with an axe to grind about trigger warnings. The only assumption that's being made here is that those who suffer from triggers might like to decide for themselves whether they'd like to encounter potentially triggering material.

~J.

Isn't the American middle class just the same as the rest of the world's working class plus petit-bourgeois elements and minus the so-called 'underclass'? While I've heard US mainstream politicians like Obama and Clinton use the term in this way, I didn't realise US leftists did.

And another thing... I've always found the American usage of the term 'liberal' to mean 'someone vaguely left wing' quite amusing, especially when in the UK the term 'liberal' simply means 'total cunt'.

Serge Forward

Isn't the American middle class just the same as the rest of the world's working class plus petit-bourgeois elements and minus the so-called 'underclass'?

An unequivocal yes to this one.

While I've heard US mainstream politicians like Obama and Clinton use the term in this way, I didn't realise US leftists did.

Well. . . I use it this way when I'm discussing the middle-class within the paradigm that mainstreamers like Obama and Clinton use it. For the most part, the middle-class in the US is a non-material fantasy that took hold in the 50s and continues to be the framework from which all mainstreamers address class in debate/convo.

And another thing... I've always found the American usage of the term 'liberal' to mean 'someone vaguely left wing' quite amusing, especially when in the UK the term 'liberal' simply means 'total cunt'.

I can relate to this for sure. I actually think that the right most elements of the GOP really made this semantic shift, or at least started it. After the ball got rolling the left democrats and greens started wearing it as a badge of pride. WE are liberals, THEY are conservatives [but, uhhh, cough cough, we both bat for the same economic team. . . ]

Wanna buy a paper mate?

jolasmo

teh

Its not personal control and choice if there is a presupposition that people with PTSD need to avoid certain subjects.

Again, I just don't get why people think trigger warnings are there to try and dissuade or prevent anyone from reading anything. Literally the only people who I've ever seen assume this are people with an axe to grind about trigger warnings. The only assumption that's being made here is that those who suffer from triggers might like to decide for themselves whether they'd like to encounter potentially triggering material.

~J.

I'm organizing the local axe grinders union against wrapping the entire globe in bubble wrap. I'm not sure humanity needs the proverbial intellectual helmets to keep us safe from negative thoughts and emotions. Again, the question I'm posing is mostly - where do the trigger warnings end? I'm not saying they're 100% illegitimate.

Back to trigger warnings, huh?

I'd agree they have their uses in a whole range of situations, but in general revolutionary discourse, the increasing use of trigger warnings often smacks of paternalism.

"Occupy"
"Crisis"
"Fictitious capital"
"Democracy"
"Democratic rights"
"Democratic struggle"
"National liberation"
"Self determination"
"progressive"
"People"
"Primitive accumulation"
"finance capital"
"monopoly capital"
"monopoly"
"workers' state"
"defend....."
"Dialectical..."
"The unknown Marx..."
"The young Marx..."
"The unknown young Marx..."
"revolution"
"revolutionary"
"point of production"

Actually, I hate pretty much everything the left says.

S. Artesian

"
"The unknown Marx..."
"The unknown young Marx..."

I've never heard anyone use this, but I'm sure hearing someone "theorize" about the positions of the "unknown Marx" is glorious.

Ethos

S. Artesian

"
"The unknown Marx..."
"The unknown young Marx..."

I've never heard anyone use this, but I'm sure hearing someone "theorize" about the positions of the "unknown Marx" is glorious.

We could rise it up to the next level by taking a leaf out of the Shia's book and talk about the "Hidden Marx" and the epochal shift from the Minor Occultation to the Major Occultation (real subsumption is so last year).

Na that would just pave the way for a leftist take on Wilayat al Faqih where an elite group of lefties would interpret what the hidden marx has to say to the working class.... oh wait, thats leninism..

hows about the ANFAQ says ... (for an annoying leftie thing?)

-supporting celtic (cause its the left thing to do apparently - scotland specific)

-palestine

-admiting that one watched porn in a discussion in a group with a significant amount of lefties in it, but it was ok because it was from a female pov (yes i actually witnessed that in a conversation once - just admit you watched porn ffs!!)

-being self righteous about the rape stuff in the swp when one was a member of them like 6 months ago

i could go on for days on this subject. (im describing one person here)

"Save the NHS" "Save our NHS"

"leftsplaining"

Or, things liberals say, more so.

"It is your moral responsibility to vote." "If you didn't vote then you can't complain." "I know voting doesn't change anything but it's important to do it." "If only more working class people voted in their own interests..." "If only the state would serve the people again." "Banksters." "I hate the rich." "I agree with your goals but history shows it's too dangerous to do revolution, we need reform through parliamentary democracy and activism." "I agree with your goals but how do we make life better for people now." "If you have a middle class job, you can't be a communist." "We need to DO something ANYTHING, NOW!" "Dialogue kills." "You know that an organisation is effective and important if it has lots of members." "The NHS/public education system/council housing/welfare state was a gain for the revolutionary movement." "The fall of the Paris Commune is a perfect example of why we need hierarchical tactics." "Working makes you independent." "Things are getting better not worse." "We need capitalism to get even worse before things will get better." "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Malva

"If you didn't vote then you can't complain."

And its pals:

"Well your party didn't get in, that's democracy, you can't complain", and, "well, you voted for them, so you can't complain". Democracy: complaints forbidden.

Liberals thinking it's contradiction because you, as a socialist, work for a corporation.

Also, my partner gets this one more than I do, but "Women died for the right to vote, if you don't vote you're betraying their legacy."

"Isnt anarchy for kids?"

"You can't say that about individual X, or Organisation Y, not because its incorrect but because we need to unite for the fight"

Also declaring women and minority problems from insults to physical assault "Irrelevant," and "identity politics"

Agent of the Fifth International

Didn't George Carlin reversed it, saying, "if you voted, then you can't complain" (Something like that)?

No, that was me.

Via Anarchist Memes, this gem:

"You are not a woman. You are a man who believes he is a woman"

-Derrick Jensen

Sadly, when I worked with a local LGBT group I heard this shit on the regular from one of the "prominent" members.
Also, as if I didn't already think Jensen was a fucking idiot.

"Ron Paul may have some dodgy opinions ... but he's against the war"

And for the legalization of marijuana. And besides he says libertarian and R-love-ution so, he's like, in support of whatever I project on to him.

Ethos

-Derrick Jensen
.

I don't know, call me naive, but I would have thought DGR wouldn't have an issue with this... 'its easier to understand the end of humanity than it is porous gender categories', I guess?

Ethos

Via Anarchist Memes, this gem:

"You are not a woman. You are a man who believes he is a woman"

-Derrick Jensen

Sadly, when I worked with a local LGBT group I heard this shit on the regular from one of the "prominent" members.
Also, as if I didn't already think Jensen was a fucking idiot.

To be fair he's just parroting the Raymond/Jefferies second wave sex negative radical feminist position. Authors I've seen listed on this very site as good sources of feminist theory.

Mike S.

To be fair he's just parroting the Raymond/Jefferies second wave sex negative radical feminist position.

If anything, that makes him even worse.

using the label "islamophobic" for Sufis, Alevis, Ismailis, etc.

" ... I've recently read a good article by Polly Toynbee ... "

{something we like} NOT {something we don't like}, e.g. JOBS NOT BOMBS, WORK NOT WORKFARE, HOPE NOT HATE

{something we don't like} IS THE REAL {something else}, or its rhetorical cousin, WHO ARE THE REAL {something bads}?

SOLIDARITY TO (rather than "with," which makes solidarity sound like a fucking leftist version of "best wishes" or "good luck," which, frankly, it often is)

The abstract appeal for unity, from dicks for whom unity is always seen as occurring between different left groups in whatever squalid "united front" they're trying to push. And its friend "Don't divide the movement."

"Direct action is elitist" from people whose politics kind of suggest that working class people are incapable of becoming revoluntionary without their help.

the button

The abstract appeal for unity, from dicks for whom unity is always seen as occurring between different left groups in whatever squalid "united front" they're trying to push. And its friend "Don't divide the movement."

the real meaning: "Only our org is entitled to divide the movement on our terms, no one else"

Leftists who included anarchists in "the movement" (and vice-versa for that matter).

'vibrant' to describe non white 'communities'

'vibrant' to describe non white 'communities'

God, that is particularly revolting. I shall probably spend the rest of the day cringing now that I've read that.

"Comrades"..

Edited to add: and all derivations i.e. 'comradely', 'comradeship' etc..

"We stand in solidarity with [X group in some far-off region]!"

"Fight Western/American imperialism!"

Agent of the Fifth International

And why the hell did I get a three down clicks for post #225. You've never heard of leftists saying that?

maybe there a few liberals read libcom?

i think its true, if as in socialism i mean democratic socialism,
the poor get screwed and have to pay for the crisis and the rich collect welfare from the state in the form of bailouts

Vicent #230

People talk about ‘socialism’ all the time.
Well like the fellow in Bertolucci’s ‘1900’, I keep looking for socialism but cannot find it anywhere. Democratic socialism - where are you?

I get it though, when the ruling class talks about "socialism" they basically mean public/state expenditure. And they have no problem with it when it benefits them - they'll gladly "socialise" the risk while privatizing the profit.

It's certainly not libertarian communism, but it does demonstrate quite a clear contradiction in the statements and sentiments of at least the American bourgeoisie.

one general remark on this thread: as someone who experienced (and hated) the DKP, the West German CP, when it was still a strong force during the second half of the Eighties, I am probably more lenient (or blunted?) than many here about much of the crap mentioned:

- "anti-monopolistic democracy": winning over anti-monopolistic capitalists and other "peace-loving" forces as a transitional step on the road to socialism ... unfortunately, there were very few employers who wanted to take part in a project which had the goal to achieve something like the GDR or the Soviet Union :-)

- I was in that period involved in the school students' movement which was due to nationwide and regional issues pretty strong in Hamburg and had a radical wing but was however institutionally dominated by a coalition of the DKP's and the SPD's youth orgs due to their superior resources, from them you often heard stuff like "that's too radical, that would alienate the parents"

- awful nursery-rhyme-style slogans (mostly untranslatable)

awful nursery-rhyme-style slogans (mostly untranslatable)

Ah, come on, that sounds jokes. Give it a shot?

Chilli Sauce

awful nursery-rhyme-style slogans (mostly untranslatable)

Ah, come on, that sounds jokes. Give it a shot?

Ene-mene-Monopole - fuer die Bildung fehlt die Kohle!

Google Translate

for the formation of the coal is missing!

I've said before and I'll say it again: bring back the libcom taglines.

I haven't been all the way through this thread, so it's probably been posted already, but can I just say Owen Jones. Even across an ocean he can manage to annoy me.

Entdinglichung

"Ron Paul may have some dodgy opinions ... but he's against the war"

Because we all know free trade and market expansion in general can be a peaceful process where everyone equally benefits and is happy to carry on these equal economic relations within the broader framework of the property based market system. It's like....this evil state is just evil with it's wars! There's no systemic necessity there! The free market is the cure for war.

dp

"stop the illegal war/occupation of country x!" ... legal ones are great, aren't they?

http://andynewman4labour.com/

Agent of the Fifth International

"The middle class this, the middle class that,

the hard working middle class,

the middle class is suffering,

the middle class is being squeezed, their being squeezed on both sides, on one side the rich is pushing them, on the other the poor is pushing them,

the middle class built this country,

we should be proud of the middle class,

the middle class is collapsing,

doesn't anyone care about the middle class???

who gives a shit about the poor and working class, the middle class is more important, they are all that matters,

the middle class is respectable and decent,

without them, we wouldn't have civilization,

they even have a wikipedia page on the American middle class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class)."

far less common in Germany ... because many know, who predominantly voted for Hitler

how do you deal with such a situation? is it possible to persuade them differently?

"mumble mumble revolutionary vanguard mumble 1917 mumble spain mumble false consciousness mumble revolutionary scenario mumble mumble mumble"

"what was that?"

"BUY MY FUCKING PAPER YOU PETIT BOURGEOIS DEVIATIONIST LACKEY OF THE IMPERIALIST STALINITE* SOCIAL-FASCIST AGENDA! AND SO'S YOUR DAD!"

(* replace with favoured leftist enemy where needed.)

Kafkaesque

Orwellian.

(I say this. It's when anyone else says it that it's wanky. And leftists aren't allowed to say it. But they do. Wankers)

Even worse when it's used by the right.

Utopian - Why do people use this word to describe an ideal society. Surely nobody thinks the society described in the book is ideal?!!!

It has to do with the word "utopia" itself. It's a Greek pun that means both "good place" and "not a place."

Aha! Thanks for that. One less pet hate to take up space in my head!

Regarding bottom-right bingo-box of liberal bingo;

I believe it was Carlin who said; "Fuck that, If you vote, you can't complain".

"successful", when used basically to mean "a thing happened" - "a successful public meeting", "a successful demonstration", etc.

"unity"

"sectarian"

There was a budget surplus under Clinton. All hail the budget surplus

Arguments about how whatever Stalinist state was "not as bad" as whatever repressive right-wing regime are always as ridiculous as they are boring.

"communism" or "communist"

Just saying, I don't care for the magic wand waving of the terms.

"We need an economy like the Europeans" For all you folks across the pond, this is a very popular sentiment in America

But Soapy, isn't France socialist? Or at least the Scandinavian countries?

"unfettered capitalism!"

Gender mores are so faux pas

Things leftists say that you hate hearing all of the time:
"France is socialist"... "Greece is socialist"... "Cuba is socialist"... "Russia had a socialist government"... etc

Socialism is not 'represented' by any government - never has been and never will be!

Mandela

[youtube]wnauDrzdOiQ[/youtube]

Yeah, what the fuck is up with all the talk of the deep state? I mean I get what it tries to say, but ppl keep harping on about it.

Khawaga

Yeah, what the fuck is up with all the talk of the deep state? I mean I get what it tries to say, but ppl keep harping on about it.

In Turkish 'derin devlet', which would translate directly as 'deep state' is an everyday term used in the main stream media and everyday life. It dates back to the last century. Perhaps this is where it comes from. If so, it means all of the security services, military, government, and the clandestine, illegal, and semi-legal apparatuses around them.

Devrim

Yeah, that could be it. First time I saw the term used was in relation to Egypt and it precisely referred to the mukhabarat, military etc. Not a day to day term there (though there may be an arabic term I don't know).

on the German left, it is mainly used describing stuff in Turkey and Italy and sometimes for Gladio and related units

Khawaga

Yeah, that could be it. First time I saw the term used was in relation to Egypt and it precisely referred to the mukhabarat, military etc. Not a day to day term there (though there may be an arabic term I don't know).

It is 'الدولة العميقة'. It is used alot these days in the Arabic press, but I think the Turkish use predates it by a long time.

Devrim

Right. It refers to the security services of the government, which agenda never changes, no matter how much the tactics may vary.

"Problematic" for "bad"

"Check your privilege" for "you are an asshole"

"Action" for "protest"

Kristian Williams

we seem to have acquired the dubious habit of adopting an everyday word, narrowing its meaning, and turning it into a kind of jargon. The above-mentioned “allies,” “privilege,” “accountability,” and “actions” are all examples—as are “process” (as a verb), “facilitate,” “recuperate,” “lifestyle” (as an adjective), “bottom-line” (verb), “spectacle,” “safe space,” “spoke” (noun), “care” (noun), and “harm.”

...

in a related development, we commonly talk about Capital rather than capitalism, and do so in a way that makes it sound like an ill-tempered deity rather than an economic system.

"common sense" -

common sense drug policy
common sense prison reform
common sense tax system
common sense friggin' pothole repair....

There is a college campus 40min outside of Cleveland renowned for its degree of on campus activism, i.e., overly complicated theories on gender and race. I've heard that the following quote is a prevailing concept on said campus: "I'm not comfortable approaching minorities due to my white privilege."

.... Isn't not talking to black people because you're white racist?

Khawaga

Yeah, that could be it. First time I saw the term used was in relation to Egypt and it precisely referred to the mukhabarat, military etc.

Interesting. I remember first starting to hear it a lot around the time of the of fall of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seemed that most people in that case used it to mean general "entrenched governement bureaucracy" rather than specifically the state security apparatuses that Devrim refers to. Though it's totally possible that the media that I was listening to were using it wrong or that I was misunderstanding.

"Information is power"

Uhh, no, no it's not.

And the related "The truth will set you free... Maaan". No it won't you fucken libertarian hippie.

Khawaga

The truth will set you free

Holocaust deniers like this one

I hate the whole angle liberals posting on facebook take.

It is basically something really irritating like being very jingoist and denouncing some evil in society like sexism or racism or the wars overseas and they will put something like, the masses are too idiotic and sheep like to realise the truth maaan!

Also any kind of animal welfare stuff or their snobbery to reality television, for some reason the liberal student in my friends list hates people for getting home from another shitty soul grinding day serving assholes burgers and turning on Britains got talent or keeping up with the Kardashians.

Also how everything liberals post has to be political or have some message. And they hate any mainstream music and claim to be into rap and only listen to dead prez and Lowkey, some of the shittest music ever made.

"Violence never solved anything"
"If we have no money how will people bother to work"

I really don't like taking the piss though, its like the whole chav thing. Do I recognise the annoying reality of living somewhere chavs live? Do I recognise the things liberals say to be wrong? Yeah, but it kinda feels like taking the piss out of people for being working class and totally not aware of anything to do with economics or politics.

If I didn't chance upon radical politics I would be spewing the same homophobic, racist and generally dumb and populist nonsense that pretty much every single person who lives near me does.

A few liberal arguements I always find funny though are :

"Why are we spending money on these wars? We have British people to help before Afghanistan"

"Jewish people control the media and have brought down civilisations, yet call you islamophobic for criticizing Hamas (NWO/CORPORATIONS)"

"Some people abuse the bennefit system"

"An immigrant got a 5 million pound mansion and our soldiers are left homeless"

"They banned christmas at my cousins school"

"We already have Sharia law in the country"

"People in prison should never be able to watch TV or go on an Xbox, its a holiday camp"

"Comedians support rape culture"

"Stewart Lee is a great comedian"

"Check your privellege"

"The native Americans were" ( when brought up in reference to European colonisation, as if the Natives were a peaceful egalitarian peoples and the whites came and ruined it, patronisingly suggest they were repectful of nature and used everything from an animal and were more civil than the europeans, despite war, cannibalism, slavery and often running thousands of buffalo off cliffs, cutting out their tongues and leaving the rest of them to rot)

Infact paternalism to native Americans and Black people in the US and Muslims in Europe is a liberal practice I find hillarious. Especially considering every single Black and Pakistani dude I have associated with vehemently hates Liberals and their i see no colour or cultural differences bullshit.

"The TV is used to brainwash the the people"

"A fair wage for a fair days work"

"Support Cuba"

"Support the Iraqi resistance"

"Hands off the DPRK"

Note a lot of these are contradictory and seem too silly to be real yet I swear I see these or general themes consisting of them often.

Oh and some really irritating ones:

"The government went to war for oil, well how come it put us in debt?!"

- My reply is always that that is not the arguement, the arguement is that private interests push and propogate wars so they can make money from them, the guns, the bombs, rebuilding infrastructure, aswell as people genuinely believing its right, shitty beliefs and non conspiracy stuff like multiple factors gravitating to the outcome of war.

I also dislike how the liberals and alot of communists see capitalism, war and such as a conspiracy, like it wars are always a conspiracy and never just people with reactionary beliefs sending other peoples children to die for them. Its always some capitalist in the corner with a cigar and a mad laugh.

Its never just people who get in office or work here or in this department being reactionary as most of us are in a reactionary society, there is always some inside info the truth the sheep can not handle.

"911 was an inside job, tower 7, I am just asking questions man!"

Cringeworthy.

Also any kind of animal welfare stuff or their snobbery to reality television, for some reason the liberal student in my friends list hates people for getting home from another shitty soul grinding day serving assholes burgers and turning on Britains got talent or keeping up with the Kardashians.

Oh, and sports, as if they're

(a) Something to distract the brainwashed masses or
(b) Capitalism in microcosm - it's just organised violence and competition, man

Although, Pearsy, we might need to have a talk about your views on Stewart Lee...

"[x] is just like the bread and circuses of Rome..."

Alternatively, "It's like the last days of Rome..."

Any argument about how capitalism would be better served if workers were treated better. For example:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5c39-What-would-life-be-like-if-workers-were-valued

The argument going: treat workers well so they'll work harder which will create happy customers, which means companies will be more profitable, which means everybody wins! Yea!

Nope. That is not how capitalism works.

Entdinglichung

[youtube]wnauDrzdOiQ[/youtube]

So this is amazing, although I'd add to just about any of the songs that are played during the breaks on Democracy Now (and, really, most things said on Democracy Now). At the moment, they've been really keen on this song which is just painful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e78TqI53bPQ

"Vote with our/their feet"

/last post on this thread today, I promise.

Oh, and sports, as if they're

(a) Something to distract the brainwashed masses or
(b) Capitalism in microcosm - it's just organised violence and competition, man

Although, Pearsy, we might need to have a talk about your views on Stewart Lee...

Kin'ell Pearsy, why don't you just get it all off your chest. Some of what you say is fair enough but so much of it is utter cack.

Orange is the new black.

Fuck me that must make the marching season back in Norn Irn even edgier!

..stop moaning about atheltes being paid 200 grand a week, the chairman is worth billions for fuck sake!

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has described what faces working people as a result of the UK government’s massive rescue of banks and the $275 billion annual 'deficit' it (and associated costs of the recession) has created as a 'decade of pain', estimating that by 2017–18 the average British family will be more than $4,500 poorer as a result of increased taxes or diminished social services or some combination of the two all to be imposed in order to eliminate the 'government deficit'. So although it misses the point about destroying capitalism, fair enough that makes even Russian oligarchy footballer wankstains' incomes look like a trip to the corner shop or a night out at the bingo both of which are more scintillating than listening to sports anoraks' fucking awful endless putrescent nightmarish babbling banal chundering mindless gut-wrenching fucking gibberish.

For a guy sick to death about Liberals whingeing Pears you don't seem like much of a barrel of laughs yourself.

Though this made me chuckle

I hate how I am confused as a liberal by work mates or relatives

" we arent whiney liberals we arent afraid of hard work"

I am off work, I have a sick note for a month, give me a break

Hmmm perchance you protest too much? :groucho: