A London student union officer has received death threats in a month-long campaign of harassment, after she organised a meeting for minority students.
Bahar Mustafa, 27, is the Welfare & Diversity Officer of Goldsmiths Students’ Union. Ms Mustafa organised a meeting for black and minority ethnic (BME) women and non-binary people, and asked that white people and men did not attend.
A Goldsmiths student, who is understood to have recently been a member of the xenophobic right-wing UKIP party, claimed that this was racist against white men.
The story was spun as ‘white men banned from anti-racism rally’, and subsequently picked up by student paper the Tab, the Evening Standard and Daily Mail, amongst others. Supporters of Bahar refuted the claims in a statement:
This is not, as has been suggested in the press, anti-white bigotry. Nor is it discrimination, in any sense of the word. The event in question is not a job or scholarship from which white people are barred from applying. It is an organising meeting involving just over ten people, convening to feed back into wider organising meetings.
However, the campaign against her subsequently escalated, with attempts to have Ms Mustafa - who is an elected student union officer - ‘sacked’. She has also received death threats, and has been reported to the police.
Following the media coverage, an assortment of Men’s Rights Activists, British fascists, and participants in the misogynist hate campaign gamergate descended on the twitter hashtag #SupportBaharMustafa with a torrent of abuse.
I #supportbaharmustafa because she might blow me up if I don't
— Rance Muhammitz (@Rancemuhammitz) May 20, 2015
#isupportbaharmustafa Because i am a filthy kike enabling leftist dipshit
— Deathparade (@DeathparadeNL) May 20, 2015
#SupportBaharMustafa #baharmustafa Put her in a black neighborhood and they would call her a white bitch and beat and rape her.
— Jack Burton (@JackBurtonReflx) May 20, 2015
#killallwhitemen #supportbaharmustafa pic.twitter.com/373mXSh6bH
— Nationalist UK (@Nationalist_UK) May 20, 2015
This effort to ban minorities from meeting without white men present is the latest in a wider campaign portraying left-wing and liberation movements as a totalitarian threat to ‘free speech’ on campuses. Former genocide-denying Marxist turned right-wing contrarian Spiked magazine recently published a ‘free speech ranking’ for universities, with red, amber, and green categories.
Supposed ‘threats to free speech’ which landed universities in the red category include bans on on-campus fascist activity, “zero tolerance” policies on sexual harassment, and recognition of transgender people. Sacking of elected officers for speaking freely is not mentioned.
You left out an important
You left out an important piece of the situation. Such as her tweeting to #killallwhitemen.
Left wingers aren't a threat to free speech on campus as I'm a liberal student myself. It's progressives who attempt to block movies being shown, speakers from appearing on campus, and petitioning for teachers to get fired for the supposed micro-agression of correcting black students papers.
I'd never read this site before, but after this article I'm unlikely to return. This is horrible.
Ryukden wrote: You left out
Hope you're ok mate. I can only imagine the horror of living with the constant fear that a student union officer is going to murder you, and every other white man. :(
Whether people are fearful of
Whether people are fearful of it or not does nothing to change the fact that it is exceptionally intellectually dishonest to leave out the issues of why Bahar Mustafa has become such a controversial figure in the first place. Inform the readers. Don't feed them a line of shit about Mustafa just being some innocent feminist who did nothing wrong and is bearing the brunt of Internet harassment just for 'fighting the good fight'. She's an antagoniser, plain and simple.
Whatever you think should be
Whatever you think should be done....it's a central piece of the story that was left out and it's intellectually dishonest to do so.
Actually it's about ethics in
Actually it's about ethics in libertarian communist journalism.
It's irrelevant to the story.
It's irrelevant to the story. There was already a national media campaign against her, then people went poring over her social media looking for ammunition. It's wilfully naive to pretend this is all about ethics in ironic hashtags - especially when there's hundreds of unambiguously racist and misognynist tweets flying in the other direction. But sure, be angry about an ironic hashtag over actual death threats.
God, give me the capitalist
God, give me the capitalist media over this bullshit any day. At least they will attempt to attempt a rounded version of the story as opposed to leftist hacks fitting reality to a pre-existing narrative.
Even if you want to make the
Even if you want to make the argument her #killallwhitemen jokes are irrelevant to the original backlash, they have certainly become relevant to the present backlash and that's worth mentioning in the article. Inform your readers. I don't want to get news from a source that just leaves major shit out when it's politically convenient.
I live my life without
I live my life without calling for the murder of anyone. It's simpler that way. Get on my level.
I'm not even offended by
I'm not even offended by "kill all white men" tweets. I'm offended by LibCom having such a low opinion of their readers they will leave what has become a key element of the story out.
DekuScrub3 wrote: Even if you
You do realise this is a political website, right?
Do you think (genuine question) when, for example, a union publishes an article on a wage dispute that the Union should give the bosses side?
People are also angry that
People are also angry that she's too white, too muslim, too jewish, that her parents live in a house, that she studies a "mickey mouse subject", that she's taxpayer-funded, etc etc. There's no benefit in repeating all the flimsy pretexts of a politically-motivated hate campaign.
All she did was hold a
All she did was hold a meeting for BME people and use an ironic hashtag. What's wrong with holding a meeting for particular marginalised groups so that their voices can be heard more clearly than they might at an open-for-all meeting? It's not like that was the only anti-racism meeting ever held at the university, is it? I don't really see what the issue is.
I also just wanted to add
I also just wanted to add that how she piously identifies herself as a POC over and over again is kind of funny considering she looks about as white as me.
Ten years ago I endured a
Ten years ago I endured a year long campaign of homophobic and transphobic abuse ending in me becoming homeless in an attempt to stay alive. I wonder if there is anything I said when I was full of pain and anger that can be taken out of context to attack me further? I imagine it is almost certain there is.
It's all class warfare. All the people attacking Bahar Mustafa can carry on fighting for the ruling class and against their own interests if they want, but I know I have to oppose them if I am to hav a life worth living. With the threats towards activists like the ones listed in the article being as common as they are I can understand why she might have posted what she did, even if I think it was a bad idea.
Re: Fall back. Not a good
Re: Fall back.
Not a good comparison. You're reporting on a Twitter brouhaha and basically are like....people are attacking this woman on Twitter....but then you don't even say what most of the attackers are taking issue with. It's like what's even the point of "reporting" it at that point? You can still argue she deserves support while telling us what the brouhaha is about.
DekuScrub3 wrote: Re: Fall
No, it's a right wing media campaign to vilify a BME woman attempting to cost cause her to lose her job, degree and have her arrested, being supported by the far right. Not just a "Twitter brouhaha". She is being attacked for organising BME women autonomously. I don't give a fuck whatever shit those seeking to attack her have dragged up. It's irrelevant to why she is being attacked, and irrelevant to whether she deserves solidarity.
Fall Back wrote: DekuScrub3
Lol.....back in the real world.
Look, I've written provocative left wing stuff for places like Salon and stuff and faced Twitter brouhahas. It's part of the game. If you write deliberately provocative stuff, expect people to get provoked.
Anyway, my main point is at least tell us what the spat is about. You don't have to agree with the criticisms, but at least briefly summarize them. All it takes is a couple sentences. Otherwise it's just not even worth coming here for "news."
Quote: No, it's a right wing
She has not simply utilized harmless hashtags. She has actively excluded whites and men from university events.
She has vilified herself by applying racist and sexist bigotry to university policy, then doubling down and posing in front of pictures of "male tears" when challenged.
She has abused her position, and abuse of your position is grounds for termination in ANY employment, as is documented discrimination and, in the UK, hate speech.
I remind you she is a "diversity officer", actively silencing people based on their sex and race, the opposite of promoting diversity!
If she were a man excluding blacks and women, you'd skip the strongly worded condemnation and go straight for the firearms. A failure on the university's part to terminate her for this abuse is an open approval of bigoted discrimination.
Sorry, which real world is this? One where she hasn't been reported to the police? One where there isn't an active campaign to remove her from her job? Where there isn't a petition of several thousand calling on her to be stripped of her degree? Where the right wing media aren't publishing almost daily attack pieces on her? Where she hasn't faced a barrage of racist abuse and death threats?
Enjoy your real world of writing provocative salon articles, where nothing really matters and people aren't facinf grevious consequences for organising. It's sounds much nicer than this one.
She is a racist. A posh
She is a racist. A posh middle class racist. A posh middle class white racist pretending to be "black". Look at her! Embarrassing that libcom are sucking up to intersectional union bureucrats. People like her are why anarchism is a joke to normal people.
Re: Fall Back Cool, yeah,
Re: Fall Back
Cool, yeah, ignore everything I was saying. Good chat, brah. :)
plasmacutter wrote: She has
It was an event for BME women and non-binary people. Of course white people and men were asked not to attend, this is basic safe spaces practise. Those of you that have a problem with minority groups organising autonomously are just proving the need for them to do so.
This article puts it better than I could, hopefully you'll be able to read it through all your male tears.
Ryukden Member for 2 hours 45
I'm not sure I agree with her
I'm not sure I agree with her and I can't be bothered to sift through all these tweets, but regardless of precisely what she said the campaign against her is not based on people actually suffering from discrimination as a result of her actions (I would be willing to bet very good money that none of the people who've signed up to complain would have gone to these meetings) I'm not particularly defending her but it's partly the mob mentality of twitter and social media and partly the desperate desire people have to explain aay their unhappiness through a notion of victimhood (usually hiding petty biogotry) that is motivating this. Sure she said some ill-advised stuff, but I think if we looked back on anyone's social media accounts we'd find something, people say things without thinking too much.
I'd be interested to know if anyone who is attacking her has ever felt the need to speak up about any other forms of discrimination.
Evie wrote: It was an event
Also worth noting that it's not even remotely unusual. Almost every Trade Union and student union up and down the country has self organised groups only open to members of that group.
Fuck, not even unions, most major public sector employers will have something like this.
Quote: It was an event for
No, it was supposed to be an 'open discussion' on these people's experiences, except for her bigoted exclusion of whites and men!
Even if you operate under the bigoted assumption whites and men are by nature racist/sexist, excluding them is STILL racist and sexist itself, and thwarts the goal of increasing diversity by preventing exposure to the experiences of BMEs/non-binaries which might lead to this magical concept of "understanding".
So, let's review:
She's a race and gender bigot.
She's doing the opposite of her job.
She's abusing her power.
If I did any one of these things, I'd be out of my job, so why is she still in hers!?
EDIT: Nice attempt at genetic fallacy and ad-hominem "Joseph Kay"
Side note... I don't really
Side note... I don't really get why "male tears" is like the feminist meme du jour.....it's like, wow, shame men for displaying emotional vulnerability! That really breaks down the traditional gender binary
Plasmacutter I linked a whole
I linked a whole article that answers all of your points. Maybe read it.
'Male tears' refer to the crocodile tears of mens' rights activists (and also men who side against feminists while claiming to believe in class solidarity)
Evie, your article
Evie, your article hypocritically calls for racist and sexist exclusion as a remedy for racism and sexism, while uncritically dispensing the bigoted stereotype of "white privilege", which the 50% of white people in grinding poverty across the anglosphere would bristle upon hearing.
Further, it advocates such anti-democratic and repressive policies as censorship and silencing of parties based on their race, sex, and/or political beliefs.
Sorry, a racist autocracy is not the solution to people who "may" disagree with you (THE HORROR)!
In short, the very concept of a "safe space" is hypocritical and orwellian in its bigotry. Not only are the excluded parties censored, the stated reasons for their exclusion amount to hate speech and blanket defamation, and serve to de-humanize them to other parties who are "allowed" within.
Vilifying critics of feminism? Yeah, I think i'm done taking you seriously. If the hashtag were #killallwomen or #femaletears there would be world-wide witch hunt against the "sexist pigs", but against men.. a-ok, right? Feminism is the world's most coddled and accepted hate movement, and if feminist laws since 1982 were gender-reversed women's rights activists would be howling with rage, but expect men to suck it up because they're "toxic".
Yes, Evie, I understand the
Yes, Evie, I understand the intent. But it draws it's force as an insult from traditional conceptions of masculinity which seems to me to ultimately undercut the feminist project in the long run.
Quote: Do you think (genuine
You know, even as early as grade school you are taught to figure out 5 key things when looking into any story.
What has happened.
Who it has happened to
When it happened
Where it happened
and perhaps most importantly...
Why it happened.
This article completely left out the issue of why Mustafa was facing such abbrasiiveness. When there is a union dispute, it's implicitly understood why the boss is on the side that he is on... after all, he is working for the profit of his company. Here there is a complete and total failure to explain the cause of the criticism Mustafa is receiving. And this right here isn't even an issue of communism vs capitalism, it's simply a matter of someone who claims to be fighting racial/gender/etc hatred while indulging in it.
It seems to me that we have a lot of people these days who approve of bad journalism when it favors their politics. Well, as someone who has no particular political leanings that leaves me in an interesting place because all I see is garbage. I want to see an end to sensationalism. I don't care where that sensationalism comes from.
Can I vote plasmacutter for
Can I vote plasmacutter for poster of the year?
Even by your own logic this makes zero fucking sense.. if we operate under the assumption that whites and men are by nature racist/sexist (which we don't but let's just roll with this bad boy and see where we end up), then excluding them means you are excluding racists and sexists.. which is actually kind of the very minimum you'd expect from an anti-sexist and anti-racist organisation! I could be wrong and the main problem with the civil rights movement was that there weren't enough racists involved (you know, in the name of balance and fairness).. or the Suffragettes should've recruited amongst men who thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote.. but I don't think so..
Silliness aside, there's actually a very good reason why sometimes white people/men aren't allowed to come to these meetings and it's nothing to do with all men/whites being racist of sexist; it's because people are discussing personal, sometimes upsetting, experiences.. they might be talking about behaviours that white people/men do and having them there could end up in discussion getting bogged down in defensiveness where white people/men feel they're being attacked/criticised.. they're obv discussions that need to happen but to insist that white people and men MUST be present at EVERY meeting about racism or sexism is, well, fucking mental..
Nothing really, I just love how they write "let's reivew" as if it's the conclusion of some in-depth investigation that readers may have lost the thread of when actually it's just a restatement of their initial points..
In case anyone cares about my opinion on this, I can kind of imagine this woman having politics that would annoy me (elected student union officer??) but it's just so obvious that everyone against her is arguing in bad faith that it's just ridiculous.. there's so little aggro with most casually racist and sexist stuff (Dapper Laughs made it onto ITV ffs) that all the fuss when it's white blokes having the piss taken out of them via hashtags or not being allowed to go to meetings they don't want to go to just shows it up for how ridiculous it is.. like, where was plasmacutter (and prob more importantly, the Mail and the Standard) during the Dapper Laughs saga? Where was the outrage, the demands that Dworkinite feminists MUST be invited in the interests of fairness?
Minority ethnic caucuses are
Minority ethnic caucuses are standard practice in the "real world". Why would a white male even want to got to an internal BME women's meeting? Safe spaces or freedom of speech have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I would say come off it, but its pretty obvious that the 4 new posters here are just trolls, spreading the hate campaign.
Bahar hasn't done anything but she happened to be in the wrong place at a wrong time, when a misogynist Evening Standard columnist, with no consideration to fact checking, journalistic ethic or conscience, was looking for something convenient to rant about to fill a blank spot on that evening's paper. Because of social media and racist junk newspapers this has spread into a national hate campaign waged by racist white men with massive sense of entitlement and victim-hood complex.
This line of posting (Oh but she's definitely guilty of something, what about my freedom of speech, wah wah) is just another weapon of that campaign, intended to raise suspicion in the mainstream observer that there's something worth noting about this case after all, by finding nonsense from the twitter-sphere and treating it like it was an issue of global importance, making it look like there's something to it by going on about it everywhere all the time. This behavior also has a dual purpose of silencing other feminist and anti-racist online through this harassment -that's the only freedom of speech issue here.
There's nothing racist about minority ethnic meetings or safer spaces, this is a character assassination campaign pure and simple, intended to intimidate feminists. In summary: FUCK OFF!!!
DekuScrub3 wrote: I also just
you do realize that you can't simply determine a person's ethnic background based on the fairness of their skin, right? I'm pretty fair, but my father for instance is very dark - does that magically make me white (not that fair skin doesn't have material benefits)
also, for all the people complaining about being shut out of that meeting - call your own meeting then! it really isn't that complicated; however, that would assume that the people criticizing her are doing it in good faith, rather than for their pet ideological causes.
plasmacutter wrote: She has
I've seen quite a few people saying that men might have wanted to attend this event to 'learn' about black women's oppression. If that was actually sincere, they could either a. Organise a meeting on the subject, and attend it b. attend a public meeting on the subject, there are many c.NOT have reported Bahar to the cops.
(Edit: cross post)
Maybe I'd feel more
Maybe I'd feel more sympathetic to her if I was in Britain. Sounds like it's a much bigger story there than it is here. (US)
DekuScrub3 wrote: Maybe I'd
uh, you were the one who was making this out to be evidence of libcom's lack of editorial ethics
Not sure I get the connection. Even if I feel bad for someone at the receiving end of a Twitter mob, if Libcom is going to bother reporting on it I'd still like to know what it's about. But whatever.
Quote: if Libcom is going to
There is always google. I often find it a useful tool when it comes to educating yourself.
Fleur wrote: Quote: if
DekuScrub3 wrote: Not sure I
well, it seems disingenuous to me to say that this is not a 'bigger story' and then continually harp on your claim that this story is the evidence of bias.
Uhhhh, still don't really get it. But I gotta go to bed. Peace
I would like to believe the
I would like to believe the people complaining over this, signing petitions and/or wringing hands online, are also so staunchly against (and as vocal) '(gentle)men only' clubs such as Boodles and Brooks (both exclusive men only clubs in London). Sadly the evidence does not seem to show this to be true, the vitriol and nonsense seems to be in this case a true one way street.
Quote: EDIT: Nice attempt at
Quote: xcluding racists and
Actually, the expectations from an anti-sexist and anti-racist organization is to promote tolerance, and promoting tolerance means engaging those who are foreign to the concept in order to win hearts and minds, but hey, if we went with your approach there'd be no need for a civil rights movement. Those who opposed racism could have just locked themselves away in "Jonestowns" in the back-country, put their fingers in their ears, and screamed "LA LA LA" while the rest of the world kept on being racist!
The silent implication here is that white people/men are malevolent creatures waiting to enhance their torment.
Or it could result in a handy group of white people/men denouncing/explaining those behaviors, showing the wronged individual they're neither alone, nor that this behavior and the outlook motivating it are a racial monolith among white people/men.But hey, who needs to build bridges of understanding when you can lock out the party complained about and form a huge circle-jerk
Hello mr straman, shall we set thee alight? (hint: that's NOT what was being 'insisted')
Fallacy fallacy is not a fallacy. It's an invention of the intellectually dishonest who use fallacies to advance an intellectually dishonest argument.
EDIT: In response to fingers malone:
Yes, I do support an end to exclusion based on gender or race for any organization, and this includes "gentlemen's clubs". This does not mean these clubs should be compelled to change their activities or the formats thereof, but if women wish to attend, they should be allowed.
My understanding of this is
My understanding of this is that this women describes working class white people as "white trash" on Twitter and lives in a big house and has a well paid job as a 'diversity' officer (despite the fact that white people and men are excluded). My girlfriend's daughter (who is very much a Feminist like all of us in our family) was ranting about this the other day although we obviously don't have any truck with nationalists, fascists and MRA's threatening to kill and rape people and obviously that complicates things and makes the whole thing an even worse situation. By the way, this woman is white herself. I think she should get a warning and be told not to do such things again and if she continues then she should lose her job. Thats my, possibly limited, understanding of this. Though by the sound of it, my girlfriend's daughter has a good understanding of it and I trust her opinion.
This is not about where she
This is not about where she lives (which seems modest anyway), what she said on twitter (that comment was said in anger, she apologised, the guy she said it to accepted the apology and "had totally forgotten about the episode until this piece of ‘journalism’ was brought to my attention"). It's also not about the fact she used "violent imagery" in her election campaign (the latest 'revelation': pictures of Xena, Warrior Princess. Shocking.). Maybe tomorrow they'll find someone who claims Bahar pulled their hair in school when she was 9. Also irrelevant.
She is being attacked because she organised a meeting for minorities, and everything else is shit they're slinging after the fact. Your girlfriend's daughter may very well dislike her. I've never met her, she might be a dick. But solidarity isn't based on whether you or some third party likes someone, it's based on an injury to one is an injury to all. Like Fall Back said:
I've defended union members who are Trots and/or complete arseholes, not because I personally or politically like them, but because that's solidarity 101.
Who should warn her? Her
Who should warn her? Her employers?
I get that people don't like the misandry humor of intersectional left, but this case isn't about that. It's about people disputing that minorities, or more generally, groups, have the right to organise against things that effect their community. Which is bollocks.
Plasmacutter, if you believe
Plasmacutter, if you believe those men's clubs should not 'be compelled' to accept women as members, then should that also not apply to this event??
Seems pretty cut and dry to
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Spaces that exclude members of dominant groups in favor of providing a forum for oppressed racial and gender minorities is perfectly acceptable. I've never seen an argument saying otherwise that is convincing. Most of them are based on ridiculous cries of "reverse racism" that at best, are incredibly naive, and at worst, borderline white nationalist. The other arguments against these spaces I've seen come from a liberal, colorblind ideology that assumes that a so-called post-racial society exists or a "we're all in this together" class reductionism. If some of these new posters can provide an objection to these spaces that isn't based mostly on these things, I'd be interested to see it.
Now, if the meeting was a General Membership meeting or decision making meeting that had these exclusions I could understand the uproar, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.
All this other stuff about Twitter matters little to me, as it seems apparent that this is a secondary issue and controversy. Plus, I don't take ironic hashtags seriously, nor am I going to explicitly throw vocal support being a right-wing reaction to someone on the left, even if I disagree with them.
I guess part of what annoys
I guess part of what annoys me is that feminists like her never seem to talk about class. Like ever. We hear about race, gender and the infinite varieties of sexual identity, but getting them to talk about economic stuff often seems like pulling teeth. They always talk about white men as this homogenous entity which implicitly feels like it ignores class.
And then with the ironic misandry...she's going out of her way to troll people. The outrage on the part of the left that people were annoyed by this seems equally performative as the right wing outrage about the minority meetings.
DekuScrub3 wrote: I guess
Apart from in her manifesto ("I promised to challenge dominant structures like patriarchy and racism, and I promised to campaign for more counsellors for students, and fight for workers’ rights at Goldsmiths"), and in defending herself ("I am passionate about the liberation of all people from systems of oppression, and would rather spend my time-off organising with students and staff for better conditions"). But don't let facts get in the way.
Fair enough. I'm probably
Fair enough. I'm probably projecting.
Edit: nvm, I don't want to
Edit: nvm, I don't want to continue this thread unnecessarily
There's two points here which
There's two points here which seem to be (unnecessarily) intertwined. One is the hashtag and its usage/meaning, the other is the organisational/meeting space. The first one seems to be somewhat a side issue to the main point, which is the meeting at Goldsmiths. People put a lot of bull on Twitter (and other social media), and sarcasm/in-jokes can often appear as stated facts or deeply held opinions. Personally, as a women (for what difference it makes), I think that hashtag is fu*king stupid, not only for the misunderstanding that can arise from its usage (or intentional misrepresentation as with some media sources on this 'story') but (most importantly) for, as DekuScrub3 points out, the fact it appears to lump a huge group of people as one homogenous entity, based only on their gender/ethnicity.
The main point is here is not about hashtags, but the more immediate and real issue of organisation, which other commenters on this thread such as JK have covered/explained well.
@Joe Maguire and Joseph
@Joe Maguire and Joseph Kay-Yeah her employers should warn her. I don't see why I should anger up my blood over some over-payed, careerist bureaucrat who excludes people based on their gender/ethnicity or anything and is at the same time called a 'diversity' officer- especially with that hashtag and what she said about white working class people- wether she apologizes or not. She should be warned by Goldsmith's Uni not to do it again. You may want to give solidarity to someone like that but to me it's clearly a waste of time, especially if they are going to do such an awful job and get paid for it.
you really are liberal arnt
you really are liberal arnt you
She seems a bit too trendy
She seems a bit too trendy lefty for me but after seeing some of the bigoted drivvel spouted by her detractors, then I'd back her any day. This thread has turned over a rock and some right fucking maggots have wriggled out.
red and black riot wrote: who
red and black riot
As has been stated many times, excluding white people and men from a BME women and non-binary peoples' event is normal practice, and happens not only in SUs but in many public sector places of employment. (Also, holding events for BME women and non-binary people only does not mean never holding events where white people and men are invited - in fact the meeting that's caused all this fall out was a follow up meeting to one that was open to everyone.) All Bahar has done is hold a meeting where BME women and non-binary people are able to speak with confidence and with each other - how this is a 'failure' to do her job is beyond me.
red and black riot
An elected SU officer isn't employed by the University, but by the SU, elected by students. And you're actually calling for bosses to discipline a worker on the basis of a right wing media attack against her - in the name of class?
(Also, whatever problems there are with sab officers is irrelevant to why she's being attacked.)
I for one, having seen the
I for one, having seen the 'killallmen' hashtag, have been living in fear, constantly looking over my shoulder for the inevitable feminist deathsquads.
Quote: Plasmacutter, if you
Please re-read my last post. I suggest you re-take your english courses if you still believe this is what I was saying.
This will be my last time posting in a thread full of hipster bigots claiming to be "progressive"
I don't agree with everything
I don't agree with everything she has said, for example that women cant be sexist or non white people racist, but there is nothing wrong with holding a meeting with permitted attendance based on being a sufferer on the issues in question - in this case racism and sexism.
I don't see how it is any different from say a meeting for people suffering from a mental disorder or physical disability/disease requesting non sufferers not attend because it would help the sufferers feel more comfortable expressing themselves or whatever.
As others have pointed out you could find tweets/comments from almost anyone that were bad and not only that but she has apologised for it anyway.
The campaign against her is just bigots looking for an intellectual justification to vent their bigotry IMO.
I dunno. I'm an animal
I dunno. I'm an animal protectionist, and I think if I wrote a piece of ironic misanthropy, like "#killallhumans" people would fly off the handle, including leftists.
But then again, I'm also a socialist and "eat the rich" is kind of the same "killallwhitemen"
Just a short video explaining
Just a short video explaining how racism against white people can be a real thing.
Meanwhile if a bunch of men are quaking in their boots for fear of people using an ironic hashtag, I would cordially invite them to just grow the fuck up.
red and black riot wrote:
red and black riot
Anarchists believe in self-organisation and freedom of association, which automatically implies the right to exclude some people. For example, when workers decide to organise as workers, the first that happens is that bosses and scabs get excluded - even the presence of sympathetic bosses could only be detrimental because by definition they have a different perspective. Similarly when women decide to get together to organise against sexism (and without wanting to sound too binary), it can be quite important to exclude men - even sympathetic men are affected by sexism in a completely different way. If black people get together to fight racism, it can be very important to exclude white people, because even dedicated anti-racist whites are impacted by racism in a fundamentally different manner.
Your position is a betrayal of basic anarchist principles, your denying solidarity to Bahar implies that you do not think that women or black people should be allowed to self-organise, that men/white people must always be able to disrupt or at least give their stamp of approval.
The reason that the reactionary right is bullying Bahar is because they hate oppressed groups fighting for liberation. It's pretty eye-opening to see some "anarchists" ligning up behind the Telegraph and the Mail on this one.
The question was asked simply
The question was asked simply in the hope of a degree of logical consistency from yourself, plasmacutter, something I assumed you'd be quite keen on since you've been critical of (supposed) logical fallacies in previous posts.
plasmacutter wrote: This
And your valiant defense of white men's right to attend the meetings of self-organizing minorities will never be forgotten. Well, at least until the next atrocity committed against this marginalized group brings the Fedora Squad out of the woodwork and some new hero rise to the occasion.
What then will become of you? Perhaps you'll find yourself in the trenches defending the bulwark of internet Atheism against the religious hordes. More likely, given your performance in this thread, you'll engage the feminist conspiracy to deny 'nice guys' sexual access to women. Either way, onward to glory!
Farewell sweet knight!
DekuScrub3 wrote: Quote: I
You are aware of this horrifying piece of misanthropy from the vampire castle of the anarchist milieu?
And yet no one has received any death threat over this! Libcom should be called on this shit and I think everyone posting and/or enjoying those threats should be fired from their democratically elected positions. Calling all leftist: in the name of humanity, we must do something about this!
Sharkfinn wrote: DekuScrub3
Read most socialist/anarchist criticism of animal rights activists or radical environmentalists, and you'll always find them digging up some quote from the 1980s where an ALFer or an ELFer refers to humanity as a cancer or something....and then said socialist/anarchist criticism will go on and on about the horrors of misanthropy.
no1 wrote: Anarchists
This is really well said! It's what I had been wanting to say on this thread but didn't because I wasn't sure I'd be able to articulate my thoughts on it well. Thankfully, someone else had the skill to do so!
I would only add that "the right to exclude some people" doesn't apply to cases when it's those in a privileged position excluding those who are in an oppressed position. So whites organizing a meeting that excludes people of color is unacceptable and reactionary.
Well, when people of color organize and exclude whites it's because they want to address racism and want to do so in an environment where they don't have to deal with the potentially hazardous complications that can come if white people (allies or not) are around.
But if white people organize and exclude people of color, it can only mean they're up to no good!
Sometimes double standards are justified. Not always, but in the case of exclusion, yes.
On this, she clearly passes as white...... up until the point that people hear her name. Especially in this era of Islamophobia, white people or white passing people with Muslim names will get viewed and treated as nonwhite by A LOT of people. The status of whiteness is lost because the name and the current context of Islamophobia racializes her.
Race is a slippery and strange thing, being a social construct and all. My friend who is black and would not be seen any other way in North America or UK went to Jamaica and when we talked on Skype he told me that there he was not considered black. He was considered brown, which on the hierarchy of oppression/privilege there is below whites but above blacks.
Almost everywhere in the US, Jews are white. In male US prisons, they're usually not white anymore. In female US prisons, they're usually still white.
Because of her name, Bahar has lived a non-white experience much of the time. Her white privilege exists in some contexts but not in others. I don't doubt that racial oppression has been a part of her life.
Don't get me wrong... it's a personal pet peeve of mine when people claim to experience the oppression that people of color do when it's clear that they don't.
I'm a mixed race white-passing person. Because race is a social construct, this makes me white, because I have all the white privilege that someone with two white parents would have. I know my experiences with race are far different from say my mom or cousins. It would be a huge insult to people of color and their oppression/experience if I tried to place myself in the same category as them. I wouldn't dare to do so.
I knew a woman, like me, mixed race but looked totally white. Now some white-passing people are only white-passing some of the time, depending on who's looking at them, and much like Bahar they can experience white privilege at some times and racial oppression as other times, depending on the situation. But for this woman I knew, there's no way anyone could look at her and not see a white person. She identified herself as a person of color and went on a lot about how white people just don't get it, etc. It annoyed me a lot!!! Apparently I wasn't the only one. When a person of color finally called her out on her bullshit and gave her a bit of a tongue lashing, I only felt a little bit sorry for her (because she clearly seemed so embarrassed).
Good post, Boomerang.
Good post, Boomerang.
plasmacutter wrote: Fallacy
Sigh. Look up argumentum ad logicam. Although my accusation that you were committing this fallacy is open to question, fallacy fallacy is definitely a fallacy.
It's also not a genetic
It's also not a genetic fallacy. Genetic fallacy is a fallacy of origins, i.e. 'this idea came from academia, therefore you are an academic for using it.' Whereas given anyone can register here, indeed, anyone can register multiple accounts here, pointing out a spate of new users attacking Bahar, in an article about harassment of Bahar, is relevant. It doesn't automatically discredit what new posters say, but it is pertinent, and not a fallacy.
DekuScrub3 wrote: Good post,
psst, here's the part where you apologise for callously denying bahar's experiences of racism. i know it's hard but one day you'll have to take a woman seriously.
Refused wrote: DekuScrub3
You're right. I'm sorry.
Serge Forward wrote: She
And a fair few good posters who I haven't seen before and some old lags who haven't been posting much. It always cheers me up when tigeriskillers posts.
I'm not against
I'm not against self-organising and I think some good points have been made about self-organising and such like on here. But I think what really pisses people off is someone in a paid bureaucratic position making stupid sweeping statements online that end up in the press- doesn't help people get behind you.
red and black riot wrote: I'm
red and black riot
Seems like a 'she asked for it' thing. Given the circumstances (one of those super creepy internet misogynist campaigns), its prolly best not to toss this around.
As a minor tangent, I think
As a minor tangent, I think people should be careful transposing critiques of trade unions to student union sabbatical officers. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty problems with student politics in general, and student unions in particular, but there isn't a direct analogue between an SU sab and a trade union counterpart, and SUs aren't really in a position to mediate struggle in the way TUs are, as students easily go round them.
A sab is usually a full-time, paid union official, but serves a fixed annual term and is directly elected (and often recallable*). So it's probably most analogous to a TU rep with lots of facility time, who sits on the branch committee or something. Not unproblematic, but when targeted by the press, clearly as a means to attack actual organising imho.
I could say more about my (positive/negative) experiences of and problems with sabs, but I don't think it's relevant here as she's not under attack because the right-wing press have a problem with union representative functions.
* So far the complaining Goldsmiths student - singular, as far as I'm aware - has failed to get the required signatures (200?) to initiate a recall election, even though it's been national news for a month, which is indicative of how much this is right-wing astroturfing imho.
Excluding whites and men was
Excluding whites and men was not a good idea because liberation from class society must be for everyone. However, she must be protected against harm and insult from vicious racists and sexists. Racists and sexists are poison of human community. They should be neutralized seriously. Capitalist politicians like to keep them to protect their class because sexists and racists are fools who can be easily directed against workers who want to free themselves from the yoke of the wage-slavery.
Joseph Kay wrote: * So far
I think this largely sums it up. I'm a student at Goldsmiths and the first I heard of this- the petition to initiate a recall election- was from a non-uni mate who saw it mentioned as a biggish story in a right-wing newspaper. The words storm and teacup come to mind.
Quote: Excluding whites and
Yes, it must be for everyone. So far it's mostly been about liberation for (white) male workers. Cue male hysteria when it is no longer solely about them and when the "others" have figured out that having meetings on their own may actually be a way in which to make liberation from class society more inclusive.
noclass wrote: Excluding
Fwiw, I understand that what happened was:
There was an open meeting on the lack of diversity in the curriculum. Then there was a follow-up meeting for self-identifying BME women and non-binary people to discuss how the first meeting went. Anyone else was and remains free to organise other follow-up meetings. And I understand this is then going to feed back into further open meetings. So nobody's been excluded from that discussion, it's just a right-wing racist student with contacts in the press astroturfing a "scandal" out of nothing.
looks like there are more BME
looks like there are more BME women than white men at Goldsmiths - hope the diversity officer looks after the interests of this minority group too
Quote: So it's probably most
A) She did nothing wrong. B)
A) She did nothing wrong.
B) She's on our side... Like early posters said, solidarity much? If that was my, or another anarchists/leftists arse in the dock for saying reasonable safe space policy I'd want to see people backing me up.
Jesus some on the left defend white man rapists for 'solidarity' and attack POC women for safe space policy? That's bloody hypocritical - Not tweeting ironic feminist slogans.
C) If I read one more fucker claiming 'reverse racism' or 'reverse sexism' exists I swear to god I'll do a Citizen Smith and write your sad little white man names in a book of wankers to be shot 'come the revolution'.
D) I'm a white working class cis male and I'm fucking daft most of the time... If I can see she's done nowt wrong, then do you just not understand basic intersectional theory and autonomy of oppressed groups? Or are you being ignorant on purpose so you can keep being sexist?
Josh wrote Quote: I swear to
You mean you don't already do this?
(Swiftly putting my notebook back in my handbook.)
Fleur wrote: Josh
Nah I do an Arya Stark and say their names every night, hoping an assassin with Lucy Parsons face will kill them in their sleep... Sorry I'm a nerd. :P
any white male student who
any white male student who didn't get her 'irony' is likely to be discouraged from seeking her help about welfare issues - which is her job. I think she has been massively unprofessional and wouldn't vote for her - but that's up to the students at Goldsmiths.
@Khawaga, you wrote:
It is important to be true. It is not true that liberation from class society has been only for white male. There have been great none white women and men who not only contributed to the cause of liberation from wage-slavery, but they were killed for it. Falsification is always against liberty from wage-slavery.
Many want to work for liberation from patriarchy and from racism to climb the ladder of bourgeois ranks. This is why in any movement against racism and sexism, it is important to include the element of anti wage-slavery. Not being able to relate race issues and sex issue to wage-slavery, is lack of knowledge.
@Joseph Key You must
You must understand that I comment about the article, what you are saying is not in the article. I cannot comment on personal report. Ideas in the article needs to be handled based on the article itself.
No1, I wrote "mostly been
No1, I wrote "mostly been about liberation for (white) male workers", not that it has been "only for white males". That's a rather huge difference between what I wrote and what you read. I take offence that you say I have "falsified" history.
But I would argue that despite the many great struggles by women and non-white folks, at least in the Western world the worker's movement, the anarchist movement is very white and very male at least up until the 1970s. While things have improved somewhat since then, in my experience "the movement" is still dominated by white men. All this outcry from these poor men that can't go to meetings I see, in some ways as a good development, in that it reveals that male dominance is (hopefully) on the wane.
This is a silly statement. There are lots of activists that are very knowledgeable about race,gender and sex issues, and will fucking tell you about how much they know, but when push comes to shove, they don't practice what they preach. Hence, it is not lack of knowledge, but rather something ideological that is reproduced in our daily relationships and behaviour. There are a few men that I used to know that could hold their own against a prof in feminist theory; they turned out to be really good at sexually harassing women.
Other posters have tackled
Other posters have tackled this well, but I think adding this simple framework could be useful for this discussion.
When a disenfranchised group works independently of the group that has disenfranchised them, that is called organizing.
When a dominant group calls for baring the participation of a disenfranchised group, that is called exclusion/racism.
That is an important distinction, and one that a lot of people have a hard time accepting because if you of that dominant group, it means acknowledging some of your own privilege and learning to be an ally. I'm sorry if this is difficult for you, but if you are interested in liberatory politics, this is essential work. And trying to argue that this organizing technique is flawed because it doesn't center on eradicating wage-slavery seems to be missing the whole fucking point. Or put otherwise- reinforces why this technique is necessary.
I'm not familiar with the
I'm not familiar with the Intersectional Left as it has been called on here and actually, reading this is the first time I've come across that term. I just Googled it so will research.
Here's an anarchist take:
Here's an anarchist take: https://libcom.org/library/insurrections-intersections-feminism-intersectionality-anarchism
Ooh, nice one, thankyou. Will
Ooh, nice one, thankyou. Will read.
@plasmacutter: Quote: I
How can you be so obtuse? What do you suppose is the impetus for a diversity officer in the first place?
Certain groups of people are marginalized within the general population. Efforts are made to correct for this. And your response is to demand that they reproduce within their own dialog spaces the very demographics under which they are marginalized?
Pull your head out of your ass.
boomerang wrote: I knew a
I'm not sure I agree with this, it is annoying to have people who don't seem 'real' claiming heritage discrimination etc but I don't really think anyone has the right to define someone else's experience. I imagine it's got to be pretty difficult to have an element of your identity thatno-one can see or acknowledge. A person might look white but not feel that way, defining identity entirely as how it's seen from the outside is a pretty bad thing.
I've had people from well-off backgrounds who went to private school telling me that I don't get it, which while it has some truth is also completely galling. I'm not a fan of separate organising (which this incident does not seem to be) but I can see why it is needed and why it works. So while it does get my goat when someone who has and will benefit from more privilege than I ever will tell me about my white privilege I also don't think that we can make generaliations and I think as long as it is in good faith.
I also remember the massive racism against mixed race kids at my school which came entirely from the black kids (there were barely any white kids) so when I see a statement like that (and I admit I don't have much context) I am deeply unfomfortable and quite frankly I would be wary of organising with someone who would use their power as a 'real' person of colour against someone as soon as they got the chance, are they against oppression or are they against being oppressed?
@workingclass: Quote: She is
I don't know her racial background and I don't care. As she was quoted in Salon, "racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender." Whatever color her skin is, her words there are correct. So-called "reverse racism" is based on a fallacy called "false equivalence" which pretends that all races experience or are equally likely to experience racism. This is plainly false, there is no such equivalence, and so when minorities who are the targets of racism speak out against racism they do not themselves become racist by doing so, no matter how strongly they might condemn racists from majority groups.
We appear to have two groups
We appear to have two groups of anti libertarians arguing the toss here. One group wants to be able to exclude people because it is their right to do so and the presence of those they wish to exclude would change the meeting in to a pointless one. The other group wants to be able to exclude others when it suits them too.
For the record
1) If a number of men/women/fish wish to have a meeting/club/shoal and to exclude others on any basis they agree upon then they should be able to do so or they have no liberty.
2) If other men/women/fish wish to judge their reasons for doing so and decide that they would not wish to attend such meetings/clubs/shoals or associate with such men/women/fish they should be free to do so or they have no liberty
I may not agree with your opinions but I would defend to the death your right to hold and express them!
Phil - Non Left Wing Anarchist
I'm organising a meeting of
I'm organising a meeting of workers. To be inclusive, I'm inviting the bosses along too.
Back in the olden days people
Back in the olden days people used to slag off Libcom (whatever Libcom is) for going on about class when what was needed was to be an active activist doing anarchies. Now everyone's a class warrior slagging off Libcom for recognising that not every prole is male, white and straight. As others have said, the spectacle of people using class as an identity describing this as identity politics is pretty tragic.
@Khawaga My bad reading, I
My bad reading, I apologize.
Most of the scientists and most of the communist intellectuals have been male and have been white. It was good that in a racist society, like for example US, white workers revolted against white capitalist in the past. Most of the great thinkers of communist and anarchist movement have been white males. I support all movements against racism and sexism only if I see it is not for becoming a "free" capitalist. I have to see element of anti-capitalism in order to support a movement.
We don't judge by few. There are huge class of reactionary women and reactionary none white capitalists who commit crime against humanity everyday in Western culture and none Western culture.
Is not a silly statement. In my experience I have seen hundreds who are aware of racism and sexism against them, but don't know anything about wage-slavery. Many of them, I have seen, join capitalist party to liberate themselves from racism or sexism.
You cannot intimidate me by your language, it take more than that.
Phil0old wrote: I may not
And the award for best non-sequiter goes to this most honorable emissary from the Ron Paul subreddit.
The debate so far has not been concerned with the abstract 'right' of people to hold shit opinions or not. We are gonna need you to go back to the OP and give it another shot.
Quote: I'm organising a
The point is that you cannot say all whites and males are racists or sexists. If bosses claim that they support communism, you cannot say they cannot attend. Engels was from capitalist family and used to manage his father's business. You couldn't tell him not to attend communists meeting. He used to financially help Marx. Both Bukharin and Kropotkin were from rich families. I have had rich communist friends who were from Iran and Kurdistan. Many of them executed.
Quote: As others have said,
I don't get much of what you are saying. If you mean people abuse "class", I have to say when it comes to domination, everything can be abused, as we experienced in Soviet Union. We can see feminism can be used for domination, black liberation can be used for domination. But the fact that wage-slavery is central has not change. Ultimately, all abuses end up supporting capitalism and wage-slavery.
noclass wrote: Quote: I'm
If my boss claimed he supported communism til he was red in the face but wanted to attend a meeting where we were organising a strike against him we could, would and should say he cannot attend.
For all that Engels did for the workers movement he likewise would have been excluded from meetings organised by the workers in his factory.
noclass wrote: The point is
No one did, apart from those defending their right to go to a meeting there's no chance they ever would have attended.
Yes you can. If someone is a boss then they are not a communist, they are exploiting workers.
Years ago when there was a student strike I attended some of their meetings, I would never have voted because I was a teacher and if I'd been asked to leave I would have. I cancelled classes in solidarity with the stirke and I would have been a bit annoyed to be treated like that, but if they felt that my presence would make organising more difficult then they should have asked.
The OP (as opposed to some
The OP (as opposed to some quoted tweets)
"This effort to ban minorities from meeting without white men present is the latest in a wider campaign portraying left-wing and liberation movements as a totalitarian threat to ‘free speech’ on campuses. Former genocide-denying Marxist turned right-wing contrarian Spiked magazine recently published a ‘free speech ranking’ for universities, with red, amber, and green categories.
Supposed ‘threats to free speech’ which landed universities in the red category include bans on on-campus fascist activity, “zero tolerance” policies on sexual harassment, and recognition of transgender people. Sacking of elected officers for speaking freely is not mentioned."
End of quote
I uphold your right to your incorrect opinion, because you are entitled to be wrong. I ignore your ad hominem attack because I expect you don't know any better. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Did you want to say something else?
A lot of people have already
A lot of people have already said what I think better than I could (like boomerang, Ed, Joseph Kay…) but I just wanted to add my two cents as well, just to say that yes I'm not a fan of twitter controversialists or anyone who has anything to do with student politics, however this is a vicious attack by the right wing press, run by billionaires, and racists and sexists on the internet on someone purely for trying to provide a space for women of colour to talk about their experiences. And this is completely outrageous, and something we should stand against.
As fallback and Evie pointed out, these types of meetings are commonplace. At my work we have self organised groups for black, female and disabled workers where we discuss issues which affect us personally, but we also hold union meetings open to all. This is important not just for the good reasons others have mentioned but also because there is often simply not time to discuss issues related to all different oppressed groups in meetings open to all, so if people aren't allowed to self organise autonomously then essentially it means these issues effectively get ignored.
So only communists should
So only communists should attend communist meetings? So why is it that Communists, Anarchist Communists and all sorts of supposedly superior groups feel free to attend and disrupt meetings of groups with whom they disagree? Shouldn't they also stay away?
They share the hypocrisy of those they oppose.
@Khawaga Quote: There are a
There are few women who I used to know that used to come to communist meeting to find husband. As soon as they found one or they gave up, they never showed up. There were women who simply came to meeting with their husband to control them.
@jef costello, Quote: Yes you
Then you can tell them in the meeting not to exploit, the meeting is a good opportunity for you since they have shown interest. You cannot say capitalists cannot become communists. You cannot say whites cannot become anti racism in Western culture, you can say men cannot become feminist. You cannot say blacks in US cannot become racists, you cannot say women cannot become sexist. If some show interest and concern you cannot accuse them of hypocrisy. You can only accuse them of hypocrisy if they act and behave contrary in long run and you do case by case, otherwise you are biased.
All capitalists should be welcome to become communist but they should be able to tolerate what it takes.
Phil0old wrote: Did you want
You don't have a response to my criticism of your post not having anything to do with the discussion on the thread? Just a random quote from the OP with no bearing on my issue with your post, some really annoying hands-on-your-hip lecturing that seems all too well-practiced, and finally some tough-guy challenge? You're a fucking embarrassment to your subreddit.
noclass wrote: I don't get
I'm saying that in a lot of online reaction from 'the left' to this issue people are holding up a "working class" against people with concern for around race, gender etc etc, as if class was a positive sociological category to be promoted and defended rather than a social relation to be destroyed. They decry identity politics while falling back into it themselves.
@tigersiskillers Quote: I'm
I agree, but, in my experience, in my environment so far, they don't have been majority. I have seen a lot that who wanted to abuse single issues to climb the ladder of bourgeoisie ranks, were so many, including leftist parties who were essentially reformists and wanted to be in parliament rather than removing state.
"working class" essentially means being wage-slave. As wage-slave, the dominating class deprive us of knowledge about our being, human community and history. This give them opportunity to put all kinds of wrong ideas in our mind to be able to direct us toward their interest which is maintaining their dominating position. This is why I emphasize that there must be element of anti-capitalism in movements to be fully supported, otherwise they should be supported conditionally and it is good to participate in them to give them that element. Blindly supporting anti racism or feminism won't help communism and in many case they take advantage of our soft heart. A very clear cut example is anti colonialist movements. Almost all of them used their own workers to achieved independent, then they joint international capitalists to exploit their own workers. Cube is exception, but they will do the same soon.
snowflake wrote: any white
Goldsmith's students not getting irony? You're being ironic, right?
Phil0old wrote: So only
So, I shouldn't feed the troll, I know. But...
No, bosses shouldn't be allowed to attend the meeting of workers - and neither should snitches or scabs.
And, yes, within political groups, they have the right to decide who joins and who attends. Why should the Anarchist Federation allow non-anarchists to join their group or attend their meetings? Lots of anarchist groups do hold public, open meetings, but it seems dead obvious that only communists should attend the internal meetings of communist organisations.
Finally - and it's already been said - but the issue here isn't that the woman in question was barring men and whites from democratic decision-making or administrative meetings of the student union. It was a meeting for minority students to discuss and network as minority students - exactly the sort of work she was elected to do.
@Chilli Sauce Quote: No,
Of course any political group can ask the other not to attend. They can have close meeting, they can have secret meeting. It is nobody's business. It is all about how much open-minded you are and how convincing is your reasoning for your cause. I don't know about the woman, I think libertarian communists should be open minded.
Article says she asked. As a minority, I always wanted non minority who support my cause to participate. Imagine Luther King ask whites not participate in civil right movement. In fact, he didn't and whites helped him.
noclass wrote: Imagine Luther
MLK (and others) founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference by inviting 60 black ministers and other leaders to a meeting. Its original name was the Negro Leaders Conference on Nonviolent Integration.
Quote: MLK (and others)
Sure, but he never said whites should not participate in his movement. Did he, or I am off? Besides, perhaps he could also include white people too because there have been many whites against racism.
Yeah but it was one small
Yeah but it was one small meeting. There were other meetings on the issue that were open for everyone to attend if they wanted to.
noclass wrote: Sure, but he
And nor did Bahar, or anyone on this thread.
@Joseph This is in the
This is in the article:
Yes, Bahar organised a
Yes, Bahar organised a meeting for black (and minority ethnic) people, much like MLK organised a meeting for black people. Neither were organising a separatist movement.
@Joseph, Quote: ... and
Excluding people based on race or sex or class or nationality is a bad idea. Just ask for those who like the cause to participate. This is the way I think it should be. If people like to have their own exclusive group, it is their choice. I won't join them. What I would lose by not joining a group who don't like me? Nothing, because as they don't like me, they will harm me, thus, I will have actually benefit not to join them.
...one meeting. Which itself was a follow up to an open meeting.
@Joseph Does it say an open
Does it say an open meeting?
In future, she can again say in a wider organizing meeting, whites and male cannot participate.
Take racists and sexists
Take racists and sexists criticism as an opportunity to enhance the cause by removing obscurity.
Again, my judgment is not based on personality of the woman which is article about. I judge by the article. May be the article is bad.
Whatever it is, these discussion is helpful to learn how to approach bad. At least I can say excluding based on race, gender ... is not a good idea. If some believe that I am wrong, fine. I just said what I thought is good. Maybe I find I am wrong in future.
noclass wrote: Excluding
Well you can think that, but you can't cite Martin Luther King, because he (sometimes) organised anti-racist meetings by only inviting black people.
Been said, but...excluding
Been said, but...excluding people from one particular meeting is very different from excluding people from a movement. And, in fact, given that social hierarchies cut across class, it's fair enough that oppressed groups be allowed to have their own private spaces and their own private meetings.
noclass wrote: I agree, but,
Yes, I've seen a bit of this, in the same way I4ve seen people use any advantage they have to advance, in the same way I've benefited from being a tall, well-spoken Englishman. I think we all see the advantages others get easier than the ones we get. I have only been stopped and searched once (half-heartedly) because a friend of mine was asking for it (long, boring story) but every sinle black guy who grew up in my area has been stopped a shitload of times. But I don't see that so easily because it didn't happen to me, in the same way as when I get a job ahead of a BME/female candidate I don't think to myself "thank god for that pale penis of mine". But I have heard a lot of people bitching about reverse discrimination etc and the only 'evidence' they ever seem capable of pulling out is the fact that a woman BME has got a job they wanted, it's pathetic. People who trade on minority status tend to pick/gravitate to fields where that works and there aren't many and generaly those fields tend to let a bunch of people politick their way to jobs based on any number of criteria.
I'm not a troll, but nice ad
I'm not a troll, but nice ad hominem starter for 10.
So you don't deny the right of anarchists and other leftist groups to infiltrate but you deny that right to those with whom you disagree?
The initial issue isn't my point. My point is the hypocrisy of both sides in their responses.
Exclusion on the basis of colour or religion or political pov from a discussion that is relevant to all, where those who are not well informed could become better informed and more enlightened seems prejudiced and divisive. By all means exclude persons who disrupt, although anarchists don't think it ok to exclude them for that reason, but to exclude all on the basis that they might be obstructive is foolish in my humble opinion.
Snitches or scabs eh? So now you go back to name calling in order to exclude. Do tell me what it is you have to fear from such people? Must everyone strike because the trade union says so? How does a trade union gain a democratic right to act on behalf of those who are not members of it? If you don't strike and I do does that me better? More working class? More of an activist for real change?
Anarchists are the kings of hijacking the marches, meetings and protests of others. They have no regard for the rights of others to live as they choose or protest as they choose. When peaceful groups protest who is it that brings the violence? Oh yes the "enlightened" anarchist communists. How proud they are of their temper tantrums.
Actually working towards a real change just doesn't occur to them, throwing a few stones and damaging a few windows is enough for them. Sounds like a bunch of middle class kids who enjoy misbehaving and dressing up in balaclavas to me.
I am an anarchist but not a socialist, nor a communist, I read Marx and found it to be generally stupid, short sighted and ignorant of human beings. Capitalism has brought itself down has it? Inevitable my ass!
My disgust and contempt for the right is far less because I never believed they were any better than they are. The so called left on the other hand fills me with disgust. I have noticed a great deal of them not standing up be counted over my fifty years, as soon as trouble begins to reach them they resort to being users of the system and empowerers of oppression.
Anyway don't let me interrupt your name calling and hypocrisy.
My response showed that you
My response showed that you were wrong. Is it my fault you cannot understand? I can join the dots for you if you wish?
I apologise if my off the cuff comments seem too well done to be off the cuff to you. I could swear a bit if that helps? Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks! Is that better?
Where do you imagine there was a tough guy challenge? I asked if you wished to say something else in response? You might have declined to do so or felt you merely wished to stand by what you had said. Do you often imagine that you are being challenged when people ask you a polite question? Have you had these paranoid thoughts for a long time or are they more recent?
I have no idea what you mean by a subreddit but I will assume it means something to other paranoid people.
Phil0old- admin: no flaming.
Phil0old- admin: no flaming. Although Phil has been banned as clearly his views are diametrically opposed to the aims of this site
ah good old ad hom What I
ah good old ad hom
What I love most about the entrenched is their ability to swear, with all those swear words and all that aggression surely you must soon overthrow the capitalist world?
Oh no, wait, never going to happen.
Quote: So you don't deny the
Infiltrate and disrupt, wtf are you actually talking about? What? Anarchists getting rowdy on marches? Anarchists having demos as part of a dispute? Just what are you on about?
Also, "scab and snitches" being name-calling? Nope. That's just people who either cross picket lines or snitch to the boss. And, yes, those people - for their actions - should be banned from workers' meetings.
Quote: I am an anarchist but
You've clearly not read Marx, considering he never once said that capitalism would bring itself down but rather precisely the opposite. If history was inevitable, why would Marx make repeated statements like: "Men make history, but not under conditions of their own choosing"?
And who here has argued that anarchist should "infiltrate"? That is all you, dear. Not saying that it doesn't happen, but the charge of hypocrisy falls flat.
But please stay here and argue. The boards can be pretty boring some times, so people like you, so certain in their own superiority and coming in with a keyboard with +10 against strawmen, is great entertainment. Sadly I think you'll leave in a huff pretty soon.
Clearly you haven't read Marx
Clearly you haven't read Marx much.
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One
Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation
As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.
Please don't leave in a huff just because you just got totally owned by an ex Marxist. Your ad hominem attacks and denials of reality are fun.
They don't "get rowdy", they
They don't "get rowdy", they generate violence in which they bear almost none of the risk but they place others in danger. Those of us not hiding our faces and not creating confrontation are the ones who reap the rewards of anarchist action.
"What a catalyst you turned out to be, loaded the guns then ran off home for your tea, left me standing like a naughty school boy" to quote a well known pop song of my era.
Calling people who cross picket lines the name "scab" is name calling. Is there some part of that you cannot grasp?
Why should anyone not cross a picket line? If they don't agree with the strike then they should act as they see fit. The violence in your system appears inherent.
I can't imagine there's a
I can't imagine there's a reason to cross a picket line outside of the strike being reactionary. For example, during the 1940s, the KKK organized 'hate strikes' against integration at the auto plants in Detroit. Picket lines like that should not be honored. But if a group of your coworkers go on strike over normal workplace issues, you shouldn't cross. By crossing, you are undermining them and deserve to be called lots of names, if not outright physically contested, which has been the traditional response to scabs in the workers movement.
I can't keep up with this
I can't keep up with this crazy thread. But in skimming it I saw more than once people saying things like, "Hey if workers held a meeting to fight to make things better at work would you tell them they had to invite the boss?"
This is very much the wrong argument to make here. I can't think of any reason why workers would ever invite the boss to a meeting if they're planning a struggle around workplace issues.
But with organizing around race or gender issues, while there are valid reasons to organize without whites or without men sometimes, it also makes sense to include them at other times (I'd say most of the time).
Making this parallel doesn't hold up, it's implying there are inherently opposing interests between whites and everyone else or cis men and everyone else.
Quote: Plase don't leave in a
Clearly that ex Marxist can't interpret texts. Where in that quote does Marx argue any automatism in moving towards communism? Nowhere. He is arguing for the potential of communism, that needs to be actualized. It's straight up Hegelian argumentation. As an ex Marxist you should really be aware of this.
I'm pretty sure by
I'm pretty sure by ex-Marxist, Phil0old means he used to vote Labour..
Well, I don't actually see
Well, I don't actually see any inherent problem with using force ("violence") against scabs, to be honest.
Obviously, it's a tactical choice: I've had lots of my immediate co-workers cross picket lines I've been on and I've never responded in violence. But that was because I don't think that level of physical confrontation would have been tactically smart at the time - but there are plenty of times where it undoubtedly is.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you just talking bollocks?
I also like the use of the word "generate" because - as you must be aware - it's the forces of the state who actually use violence against protesters. Blaming anarchists for the response of the police is just, well, pretty stupid.
I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make with that ridiculously long Marx quote. (Enjoying all the Marx-baiting, btw.) You really don't understand the politics of the site, but I will note that Marx said that capitalism will ultimately leave humanity with the choice of socialism or barbarism. There's no inevitablism there, comrade.
Finally, let me tell you, pop lyrics make a great argument....
Am I correct in thinking that
Am I correct in thinking that there has been a higher number of people than usual signing up to this site just to be wankers recently? Or maybe I've just noticed them more than I normally do.
Yup, definitively been an
Yup, definitively been an influx of wankers. Particularly on this thread.
B) She's on our side... Like
B) She's on our side... Like early posters said, solidarity much? If that was my, or another anarchists/leftists arse in the dock for saying reasonable safe space policy I'd want to see people backing me up.
I don't think she is.
I think she's against the Oppressor (ie you, cis-male white) and for the Oppressed.
It seems a bit rich to be calling for solidarity from the people you've spent the last few years attacking as your oppressors, the people who are mocked as part of their in-group banter. Might've been a bit better in retrospect to drop that edgy student politics posturing and actually try to build up some trust, but nah who needs that when you've got a twitter echo-chamber full of people to impress?
You can't be "Not My Comrades!" one minute then "Why aren't you helping me!" the next. Bahar Mustafa, whilst I feel sympathy cos she's under attack, doesn't give a fuck about white men of any description, and infact to get sub-cultural respect and status within her circle of mates mocking white men seems to be the way to go about it, so you can't hardly appear surprised and shocked that when she finally does (utterly predictably) come under attack that a lot of people are indifferent.
Admin: Ombudsman banned for (now unpublished) untrue smears below.
And here comes another one.
And here comes another one.
Let's all have a moment of silence reflecting on the poor mocked white male. They must carry a heavy burden.
Ombudsman wrote: I don't
I don't think this has any grounding in what has happened, aside from the usage of the hashtag (which I feel is fu*king stupid anyway, for a number of reasons), there hasn't been any showing of evidence (that I've seen anyway) that Bahar is against cis white guys. Maybe the in jokes, sarcasm, and all round bulls*it that passes for a lot of postings can get inflated and taken out of context on social media, that is an issue on both its overall usage and how tweets/posts can be taken out of context by those who wish to do so (namely the press looking for a quick story), but it doesn't serve as concrete evidence of a dislike of white men, and furthermore is a side issue to the main part of this all (the meeting).
Fleur wrote: Am I correct in
Fleur wrote: Am I correct in
Not just tosspots who have come to have a go at Bahar, but a gaggle of ancap trash. I despair..
Ombudsman wrote: You can't be
This reminds me of the quote by Margret Atwood that "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
I'm finding it hard to believe the amount of genuine anger and hatred directed at Bahar by supposed anarchists (not just here, also elsewhere) simply for using an obviously sarcastic hashtag. Some guys really seem to feel feminist humour as deeply as that quote implies.
Petition fails, Bahar to keep
Petition fails, Bahar to keep job.
Good to see the
Good to see the racist/sexist/far right tossers get their petition binned. That said, she's got the kind of liberal 'right on' politics that can induce extreme nausea in communists at twenty fucking paces. Anyone got an anti-emetic?
I dunno Serge, this thread
I dunno Serge, this thread might not be the best place to look at the politics of someone who has been on trial constantly for days on end. It would be nice if the issue was just about discussing whether oppressed groups of people have the right to organise, but it's clearly one where Bahar has become a peg in which all degrees of misogyny has been hung.
It's a bit of a discussion that is going round and round, but having been through the mill (and disgracefully so by some anarchists), it might be more of an act of solidarity not to attack Bahar from other not-so related angles such as politics.
Aye, fair point, plasmatelly.
Aye, fair point, plasmatelly. Time and place innit.
Also, Jesus, who never had
Also, Jesus, who never had embarassing teenage/twenty-something politics? I know I did.
I suppose so. In my teens, I
I suppose so. In my teens, I was just an 'apolitical' football hooligan. Totally ignorant about the world. Always hated the rich, mind, so not with totally irredeemably rubbish politics.
Actually, I find it bloody
Actually, I find it bloody depressing that a bunch of self-identifying radical folks can lose their shit over a hashtag, seemingly oblivious that it's a joke, irrespective of whether or not you find the joke funny, and obviously clueless about where the joke came from and what it is in reaction to. The idea that solidarity should be withheld from someone because they used a hashtag joke on twitter that you're not in on is quite beyond ridiculous. (And that's me being very, very nice about it. )
Lol when did the workers
Lol when did the workers movement and Marxism in general become about defending guilt ridden middle class white people who tweet kill all white men and getting offended at an off camera rape in game of thrones, the same series where men are tortured and have their cocks cut off?
And no one is offended at the kill all white men hashtag they are pissed off about this smug white dickhead who would try and have you fired or decry you as a racist for doing the same thing about any other group, even as a joke. I know more people who have become right wing or open to right wing poltiics over the last decade because of a backlash towards the SJW, ultra guilty liberal crusade and double standard all over social media, the media etc. than any other reason. People are sick of it.
Not only is it counter productive it is cringeworthy. Like the financially sound hippy haired white kids in Ferguson who outnumbered the black people there lol. Black people thought it was hillarious. It just stinks of hipster bullshit.
Every time you see a leftist or feminist on social media they are trying to get some cunt fired because they said the wrong thing or offended someone and yet when some annoying twat who is supposed to be promoting diversity tells white people they are not welcome to meetings and tweets killallwhitemen the white knight brigade comes out in full force.
Let me guess people on here supported CancelColbert and that punchable git Suey Park :D Oh the oppression of upper middle class Asian women who live at home with their parents. What a cliche.
Fleur wrote: Actually, I find
The problem is some average working class guy would be vilified and probably lose his job if he did something similar but it pissed off some feminist blogger or some social justice warrior. Liberals and SJW's have become the new right insofar as they are the ones having people fired, they are the ones trying to squash any comedy, films or ideas that run counter to their narrative.
And when these kinds of double standards are so obvious it makes people pissed off and highlights why the rhetoric put out by the supposedly "radical" left today is deemed pathetic nonsense by the population at large.
"I don't know her racial
"I don't know her racial background and I don't care. As she was quoted in Salon, "racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender." Whatever color her skin is, her words there are correct. So-called "reverse racism" is based on a fallacy called "false equivalence" which pretends that all races experience or are equally likely to experience racism. This is plainly false, there is no such equivalence, and so when minorities who are the targets of racism speak out against racism they do not themselves become racist by doing so, no matter how strongly they might condemn racists from majority groups."
You can't just redefine racism to fit your narrative. If a black man targets a white woman beats and rapes her is that not racist because the expression of domination has no structural element?
This type of bizzaro stuff is exactly why I stop labelling myself as a libertarian communist. What planet are you living on? This is what happens when leftists only discuss politics with other like minded people. It becomes silly. No dissenting opinion or honest voice pulling you back to the real world.
fuck off liberal
fuck off liberal
radicalgraffiti wrote: fuck
No the person hashtagging killallwhitemen was a liberal. But OK I can see you can't bare other opinions or discussion unless it is with people who agree with you. As I said above this is typical. It is the left wing version of stormfront syndrome. Anyone arguing the jews are not evil is a jew ergo fuck off jew. Circular logic which means embarrassing political rhetoric like what has been on display in here can survive in this sheltered vacuum free from outside pressures and debate than can change peoples stances, free from valid and obvious criticism by real people in the world who don't have selective hearing and disregard all other opinions.
Like this nonsense piece that didn't even mention what caused the outrage or mention she effectively banned white people from meetings. Lol at "persecution" in the title.
Don't you have a war to go
Don't you have a war to go fight in or something?
And this Georgie idiot wants
And this Georgie idiot wants to fight for the PKK? I think you'd be more at home with ISIS dumbarse.
Fleur wrote: Don't you have a
Yeah the one most users here disagree with because actually fighting against people who are selling women into slavery and torturing minorities isn't as important as showing outrage about fictional rapes on TV shows or the plight of first world white women who have to endure billboards showing sexy females.
thanks for reminding me why I gave up on this nonsense as a young politicised worker and why I am feeling no compulsion to stay a second time round.
Hey Georgie, if you're going
Hey Georgie, if you're going to spew this vomit, could you at least not triple post?
bastarx wrote: And this
Yes my support for steamy homosexual erotica, my complete loathing of religion and my opposition to the ownership of women as property would be more at home with ISIS, not the women of the YPJ who are actually fighting for women's rights in the realest way possible, as opposed to Bahar, who is valiantly resisting persecution on the deadliest battlefield known to mankind.
You know I hear the guys in Rojava are having a whip around for a supportBahar fund.
Quote: I know more people who
i think it says more about the fragility of your associates' beliefs, no need to go full reactionary however tempting.
wojtek wrote: Quote: I know
I have observed this from lots of coworkers, all regular 9 to 5 types, apolitical in general but hostile to the nonsense professional victim brigade. Unless you are claiming the entire british workforce are savage right wing cunts, I think it is a reflection of the alienation brought about by the far left's rhetoric, not the moral fiber of the mum of two I work with who thinks the SJW's of the world should shut the fuck up whining about trivial nonsense, who makes snarky comments when the women's league are on radio1 whining about some bollocks.
Should I call the
Should I call the waaaaambulance for you Georgie?
Anyone else suddenly more
Anyone else suddenly more excited that the PKK is taking volunteers?
Well I am no expert about
Well I am no expert about contemporary British cultural or political tendencies on women or minorities. So I do not want to speak about it at all. But this remind me about something. Leaving that whole discussion aside, I very much doubt kurdish freedom movement would ever let anyone to criticize a women (or to be threatened) like she is being treated now . See some tweets from Graeber:
kurremkarmerruk wrote: Well I
I have no issue with women being leaders, I support women have equal rights, full rights over their reproductive cycles. I think the push by the PKK and DUP to empower women is great. I would have no problem taking orders from a woman. These are seperate things.
What I am criticising is the SJW liberal crap these supposed feminists and lefties are spouting. And I think you will find the PKK and the female leaders are far more on my side of this issue than they are on the peoples in this thread.
n this video go to 31:50 and hear one of the female commanders giving a talk just fresh from taking Daesh terrirtory. She talks about feminism and I am guessing she would be called a piece of shit on here for what she has to say, because her disagreement that feminism is good makes her
a woman hater despite her risking death and her female fighters being severely wounded to try and rescue Yazedi women who are being held as slaves and rescue women from the plight of life under Daesh in't indicative of someone caring about women. To do that you have to support the delicate first world white women having mean things said about them online in response to their mind boggling hypocrisy:
I am reminded of the LA Times
I am reminded of the LA Times article which was published this week (which I can't be bothered to find because I'm having my breakfast rn) that young feminists should stop worrying their silly little heads about rape on campus because girls who have bee kidnapped by Boko Haram have it much worse. It's a completely facile argument, implying that people cannot be concerned with more than one thing at a time. Interestingly, it's an argument which is often thrown at feminism, stop whining, there are women in other places in the world who are much worse off than you, suck it up princess.
Imagine transferring this argument elsewhere? Stop complaining about working conditions here in the west ffs, at least you're not on a South East Asian slave ship - now they really have oppressive working conditions! Or you could be a kid in an an indentured labour brick factory, they'd be really grateful to have the pay and conditions you have!
Really pleased to hear that mate. What do you want, a gold star? A participation trophy? Obviously, I'm also really thrilled that you know exactly what it is that women should be really concerned with and we're fortunate that you enlighten us with these things.
Fleur wrote: I am reminded of
You are welcome.
Lets see you;
Reject the existance of stuctural rasism, instead prefering to pretent people of differatn races exists in perfect equality mediated only by their indervidual actions.
You equate pointing out racism, sexism etc, with opresing people.
You don't care about the politics of groupes so long as they are fightign the real enermy, isis
you don't see any opresion unless its at the level of people being kidnaped raped and sold into slavary, and talkign about any other kind of oppresion or discrimination is the reason the left is so weak
and you think your not a liberal? lol
Georgie89 wrote: What I am
When did I compare calling out racism with oppressing people lol? What re you waffling on about?
See what you did is attribute a bunch of stuff to me. Because I criticise Bahar does not mean I reject systemic racism, or anything of the sort.
The problem is you can't comprehend criticism of Bahar from any other place than some right wing anti women place. Yet regular women make fun of and criticise feminists like Bahar more than anyone. But in your mind criticism of someone who tried to have people fired for making jokes themselves now whining people are trying to have her fired for making jokes is somehow arguing against womens rights.
And as for your assertion that going to fight alongside self identified libertarian socialists and communists against people literally stripping women of all rights is the liberal thing to do, but sitting on your laptop posting on a lefty forum about the plight of privileged upper middle class students whose only experience as a worker is on a fucking campus as a diversity officer is fucking laughable.
The radical feminism of the first world is in vogue on the far left because it is easy, when the height of your concern is a woman being objectified for dressing in a skimpy outfit and you call people who actually want to fight for real meaningful womens rights in places where they are actually being persecuted ... like for real, not just getting snarky internet comments, then you might want to reassess your nonsense.
Georgie89 wrote: But in
Hang on, when did Bahar ever try to get someone fired? First I've heard of this.
Quote: Hang on, when did
I think he's got it in his head that she signed that pointless petition to cancel the Colbert Report. I signed that petition to buy David Graeber a tank but I knew nothing would come of that one too.
She loves to try and have people fired, stand up comedians, tv hosts. Basically anyone who says anything that offends her deserves to lose their job. But when the shoe is on the other foot of course she is being persecuted and having her livelihood unjustly threatened.
Once again her tweet wasn't offensive, her entitled double standards are. Obviously kill all white men isn't offensive. We have all the guns and power, white men could forcibly make women slaves. We don't because we think it is wrong. Which makes it ironic first world feminists have more scorn for supposed patriarchy in the first world than Daesh who are literally enslaving women.
Because the people enslaving women are brown and muslim so focusing on their real crimes is islamophobia and fear mongering against people of colour.
She rightly focused her attention on having white colbert fired for the following joke:
He then points out the redskins owner started a charity for native americans to try and quelll some of the heat, yet he chose an obviously racist name for the foundation, to which colbert mocking replied he was starting his own charity, the ching chong ding dong foundation for sensitivity to orientals or whatever. Ridiculing a racist billionaires attempts to appear non racist backfiring.
Suey park and a bunch of SJW's then tried to have him fired, Bahar was one of them. So by her own standards she should be fired. It is the hypocrassy is what makes people hate her.
Quote: She loves to try and
Do you actually have any evidence for this, apart from a visceral dislike of first world feminists and a deep empathic sense of solidarity wit internationally famous TV hosts? Let it go mate, the Colbert thing was over a year ago. He doesn't even do the show any more. I'm sure he's OK, not suffering too much.
That's the second woman you've expressed a desire to hit now.
Fleur wrote: Quote: She
I want to hit men too. Just like in another thread someone advocated violence against scabs and got a bunch of upvotes. Would violence against male scabs only be justified but hitting a female scab is sexist? Lol you are so fucking cute. Are you saying women should have all the same rights but none of the responsibility, like getting their teeth broken when they hit a man, or getting fired if they joke on the view about a man having his penis cut off? Can you imagine if that scenario was reversed and it was a bunch of white men joking about a woman's boyfriend cutting her breasts and clit off? Instant firing, instant police investigation into hate speech. But Woopi goldberg and her pack of imbecilic ladies can cackle about it and it isn't criticised by anyone?
Is that like almost a culture where men can be alughed at for being raped i prison and supposed feminists on a tv show can laugh hysterically about a man having his penis severed by a woman. If that was the other way around that would be used as an example of rape culture and patriachy lol.
The difference is I don't think violence is ok in real life to solve arguments, unlike some feminists who know they can't get hit back so hit men and don't get charged:
Quote: Lol you are so fucking
I am. I really, really am :)
Edit: Jesus, you watch The View? For fuck's sake go outside and play before your brain turns to total mush.
Fleur wrote: Quote: Lol you
Once again you go off topic rather than address the points. No I don't watch the view, there is this thing called youtube that has clips. Do you care to address the points? No because to do so is disastrous to your world view.
Also can you imagine if a tv show joked about cutting a womans tits and clit off and my response to a feminist on here was, god you watch that show hahaha get out before your head turns to mush.
INSTABAN would be called for. Hilarious double standard yet again.
She pucnhes a guy unprovoked multiple time smakes his lip and eye bleed, with that self entitled white woman grin. The abject look of terror and sock that he would dare to hit her back is priceless.
Look at the comments, notice the women saying he is sexist because he hit a woman back.
Equal rights. If the situation was reversed no one would condemn a woman for hitting a man back in an unprovoked attack.
Ryukden wrote: I live my life
Thing is, I don't have a
Thing is, I don't have a youtube account because I don't spend my time living vicariously and fulminating my outrage by watching youtube videos, and I have no interest in making an account so that I can sign in to watch that video, which has an age restriction. It's also a particular annoyance of mine, people who post up videos in want of making a coherent argument of their own.
If you're going to make MRA arguments to make your rather pathetic little points, then you've probably come to the wrong place. A video of a woman hitting a man and presumably getting lamped for it, really if that's the sort of thing you enjoy watching, you really are a prick.
As for you saying that you don't think violence is OK to solve an argument, that's pretty funny coming from someone nursing a guts and glory fantasy to go off to join a war.
Btw, you're not BJJ by any chance? Or do all sexist, ill-educated, self-identifying lefties sound more or less the same?
Fleur wrote: Thing is, I
I am a bad guy for watching a woman get lamped, not the entitled twat punching men and expecting no reaction.
You are embarassing. You are an introverted coward who feels brave in this safe space to call for violence against those who disagree with you and condemn everyone who does not agree with your views 100%.
Also can you imagine if a tv
The difference is that people don't tend to go around cutting off men's penises. It's a fairly rare occurrence, which is why individual instances of it tend to make the news. Female genital mutilation is still happening in fairly large numbers, on the other hand.
I mean, I agree that laughing at a guy getting his dick cut off is pretty dispicable, but it's not as dispicable as laughing at large numbers of girls being mutilated on a daily basis.
autogestión wrote: Also can
People don't tend to have FGM in the first world either so your point is irrelevent to the point raised.
Also the most vocal critics of FGM such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali are hated by feminist in the first world and as hate mail from them constantly, because she calls out muslim abuse of women and girls. Which is wrong, naturally.
All mutilation of a childs genitals is wrong. Are you aware of the thousands and thousands of circumcisions in the third world which lead to infection and death, a lifetime of numbness and sexual dysfunction beacause of botched surgery etc.
How is this a woman's issue rather than an issue with religious people treating children like property. Nice attempt to dismiss actual points though.
How about the open joking about men being raped in prison. Can we not even pretend that if there were casual joke about women being raped at the same level it would not be fa rmore criticised on this forum? Male prison rape seems pretty systemic too, isn't that something you guys talk about alot? Or is it only systemic if it applies to vagina?
Quote: How about the open
You clearly have a problem with the idea of holding more than one thought in your head at a time? In what way in your over-simplified little head do you imagine that being a feminist is being pro-prison rape?