Hakim Bey and Ted Kaczynski threads

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 19 2010 11:56
Hakim Bey and Ted Kaczynski threads

Been off libcom for 36 hours or so and found that the 2 threads started by Tor whatsit on HB and TK seem to have disappeared. What happened?

Sheldon's picture
Sheldon
Offline
Joined: 19-01-09
Aug 19 2010 12:41

Moved to libcommunity, it seems

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 19 2010 13:14

Thanks.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 19 2010 22:07

And I believe Tor was banned. Which, while justifiable, was slightly disappointing. There should be some threshold of insanity, that as long as it's not breached, be allowed purely for entertainment value.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 19 2010 22:47

Why was he banned? I mean apart from having the worst politics ever.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Aug 20 2010 01:06

Couldn't you have just confined him/her to libcommunity like you did with the outlaw?

I think threads like this, while having a clear lul value, are actually likely to be pretty useful for people who may be new to class struggle politics and who are browsing libcom. At the very least it may help them clear out some of the muck which one inherits from both the anarchist and leftist scenes. People don't begin their political development with a clear understanding of class and capitalism. I know I didn't. Threads like this are important.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 20 2010 09:24

I agree that it's worth having these threads out in the open because they do show up the weaknesses of the arguments used by their supporters.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Aug 20 2010 10:58

was he the guy who came out with the (on the wings of) dauve type shit about the only thing that's bad about paedohphilia comes from a result of it's repression?

Not a great loss really

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 20 2010 11:10

I think anyone who's politics i detest (ICC, Hughes, Hidden Agenda, Cleisbotham, etc.) should be banned immediately (or before) -

Yours ever so sincerely -

Comrade Stalin

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Aug 20 2010 11:25

paedohphilia isn't politics

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 20 2010 11:51

As far as I remember Tor whatsit was not in any way a categorical apologist for paedophilia. Give me a quote where he clearly defends it. Some of the above dogmatists, however, clearly are apologists for politics that led to the massacres of Makhnovites and of the Kronstadt commune, and in the case of Hidden Author, - he supports current and future mass murder.

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Aug 20 2010 12:01

The two that caught my eye were

I don't understand this hatred for pro-pedophilia

I believe that paedophilia is a disease created by suppressed environment

Clearly none of these are clearly defending it in itself, but they are somewhat suspect in their own right (although to be fair I actually think the dauve one about the misery being a result of it's repression is worse than the one above)

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 20 2010 21:07

He is also a right-primitivist, to top it off. There's few worse combinations of politics. Still, I wanted to have more fun arguing with him.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Aug 22 2010 19:43

I have also been gone for a few days. Like Samotnaf I don't think the banning of Tor was justified. Also why was the thread moved to libcommunity when some of us were trying to have a serious conversation there.

oisleep wrote:
The two that caught my eye were

I don't understand this hatred for pro-pedophilia

I believe that paedophilia is a disease created by suppressed environment

Clearly none of these are clearly defending it in itself, but they are somewhat suspect in their own right (although to be fair I actually think the dauve one about the misery being a result of it's repression is worse than the one above)

Did these miss your eye?

I dont condone or defend the act og abusing children either; My point is to extract his revolutionary ideas from his otherways horrid views.

His views are not based on any domination of children, sexual or otherwise, but the warped view that children and adults can have consensual sex. Equally NAMBLA is not a rape organization, but a position that, wrongly, assumes that children can give consent. As much as I disagree with these views, I am pressed to support them when I see the injustice people do my calling them "rapists" or "child molesters"
...
I read Bey's text, and I do not believe that children can give consent

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Aug 22 2010 19:59

Costas, all you've pointed out is that Tor contradicted her/himself.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Aug 22 2010 20:54

Choccy I don't see the contradiction.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Aug 22 2010 20:57

There is a contradiction between thinking Bey 'wrongly, assumes that children can give consent. ' and being unable to 'understand this hatred for pro-pedophilia'.

So Tor thinks it is wrong to have sex with kids, but doesn't know why people oppose it and are repulsed by those that engage in or defend it. That is fucking batshit.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Aug 22 2010 21:17
Choccy wrote:
There is a contradiction between thinking Bey 'wrongly, assumes that children can give consent. ' and being unable to 'understand this hatred for pro-pedophilia'.

So Tor thinks it is wrong to have sex with kids, but doesn't know why people oppose it and are repulsed by those that engage in or defend it. That is fucking batshit.

The exact quote of his was "I don't understand this hatred for pro-pedophilia. YES (yesyesyes) it is wrong, but simply having an opinion does not constitute rape."

He was just making the point he made earlier that those who are of the opinion that children can give consent are not the same as rapists As much as I disagree with these views, I am pressed to support them when I see the injustice people do my calling them "rapists" or "child molesters.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Aug 22 2010 23:52
Costas wrote:
He was just making the point he made earlier that those who are of the opinion that children can give consent are not the same as rapists As much as I disagree with these views, I am pressed to support them when I see the injustice people do my calling them "rapists" or "child molesters.

This is nothing more than a distraction. They are not literally 'rapists' or 'molestors' however their views are vile.

and this IS a contradiction, Tor saying you think it's wrong to think children can consent to sexual relationships with adults but not being able to "understand this hatred for pro-pedophilia. "

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 23 2010 03:25

iirc, someone - over a year ago, on one of these threads (no - I'm not going to waste time to search for it) - defined paedophilia as any adult having sex with an underage person, and that that adult should be imprisoned. My sister, back in 1960 when she was still 15, started a sexual relationship with one of her teachers (perhaps 10 years older than her), a relationship that lasted at least 2 years, and the friendship between them lasted for a lot longer (for all I know, they might still be friends). My parents were ok about it, as they got on with him, though I remember my dad saying, rightly, that normally he thought that kind of age difference was unhealthy or something like that. However, I can't think of anything that would have been more traumatic, more abusive in relation to this particular relationship, if the teacher had been sent to prison. Of course, with pre-pubescent kids, that's a different matter - it's very very nasty, obviously. Obviously. I repeat that, because some peope when it comes to paedophilia, feel they have to make a big thing about this obviousness, as if that makes them somehow a Good person - never mind all their other nasty attitudes, at least they're not like the lowest of the low (one person on one of these threads felt it necessary to be so graphic and explicit about his repulsion for paedophiles, it made me feel he was a repressed paedophile himself) ; it reminds me of a jokey statement by Kurt Schwitters, "Given a conflict between Good and Evil, I would unhesitatingly be on the side of Good".

But, given the hierarchical conditioning and distortion of our relationships with our parents that might mean that any sexual relationship with someone considerably older would involve a lot of unresolved projection of contradictory emotions connected to our parents, often any large age difference at any age is suspect. Though I would certainly defend the right of a 35 year old to have a sexual relationship with someone 20 years older or even more (my age, for instance).

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 23 2010 09:16
Samotnaf wrote:
But, given the hierarchical conditioning and distortion of our relationships with our parents that might mean that any sexual relationship with someone considerably older would involve a lot of unresolved projection of contradictory emotions connected to our parents, often any large age difference at any age is suspect. Though I would certainly defend the right of a 35 year old to have a sexual relationship with someone 20 years older or even more (my age, for instance).

I think a large age difference is suspect and I don't think your sister's relationship is unusual (apart from the fact it was with a teacher), it's something I have noticed a huge number of my female friends have done. I agree that in that case to lock him up would have changed her perception of herself from a woman in a relationship into a victim and would probably have done real harm. I do not know the context but I think that as a teacher he acted very wrongly. Young people are developing and your job is to help and protect them. It is no defence if the student made the first move, I would no more beat up the fourteen year-old that squares up to me than I would have sex with the one that flirts with me They are 'trying out' their changing bodies and selves and adults shouldd not take advantage of this.

Obviously relationships can be exploitative even amongst people of the same age, the difference with relationships with children is that I do not believe that it is possible for them not to be exploitative and the risk of damage is immense. I think the idea of an age of consent is a clumsy tool at best but as things stand I can't see a better way, especially in the context we live in. I do think it might be possible at some point in the future for perceptions of sex to change but I think that it would be progressive change in response to the difference in lifestyle created by living in a post-revolutionary society. As a result I think it's so speculative as to be a waste of time. My concern is that people who advocate it are either taking anti-morality to excess (which is a childish position and not well thought out) or they are attracted to an ideology that lets them defend these desires.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 23 2010 13:15

Got virtually no essential disagreements with what you say, JC, though to say that a teacher's "job is to help and protect " young people is a bit of a joke (actually, the job of a teacher is to help prepare and reinforce kids for this alienated society, but that, of course, is another thread).

But the "age of consent" is not something that should be acepted as a given: in many societies, the age of consent is the beginning of puberty. And as for pre-pubescent sexuality, between pre-pubescent kids (doctors and nurses games, looking at each other naked or whatever, maybe touching, that kind of thing) it's as healthy or as unhealthy as adult sexual relationships. Repressed, it's certainly unhealthy (as the Victorian "masturbation makes you blind" method of scaring kids shows).

In any potental post-revolutionary society if the implications of sexual relationships between those with a great age difference - the elements of projection of contradictions with parents, the possible miserable sexuality of the adult's relations with people closer to their own age, etc. - were a communal issue and was publicly discussed with both partners, it could certainly be possible to have a healthy relationship between an almost 16 year old and a 25 year old (in fact, I guess, since neither the teacher nor my sister ever hid the matter, my parents probably discussed this situation a bit with them, though in a society not intimidated by the repressive hypocrisy of the State, it should certainly not just be the parents that discuss these things).