Being a socialist, a radical, or an anarchist is not the same as 'bitching loudly on the internet every day'.

YES IT IS

no gods no posters

whynotboth.gif

for tons of ppl bitching loudly on the internet is how they perform their politics so esby otm?

And for other people it isn't so esby not otm?

yeah but consider the audience

I am.

I guess centrists can perform their politics "in the real world" by doing nothing and not caring "like grown ups"

as one of ilxs centrists, or right wing cunts, depending on yknow, whatever, statement is otm

yeah true maybe they should roll up into state capitols heavily armed

Good summary of centrist foreign policy positions

yelling at the kids is not burning and raving at close of day

burning and raving at close of day is bewailing one's own mortality and how just as you're closing in on the wisdom and vision you sought, your time starts to run out, and your energy flags no matter how jealously you've guarded your powers, and besides the futility of the whole enterprise becomes more transparent and it doesn't seem fair because seen from the right angle it all seems so beautiful but the clarity of your aging eyes forces to you see both that beauty and its pointlessness

being mad at williamsburg is basically going gentle, because it's what all the olds do when they run out of the power to be properly mad

― The Complainte of Ray Tabano, Saturday, November 29, 2014 1:37 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

does being a socialist, a radical, and/or an anarchist necessitate actual activism?

if "activism" means engaging in some kind of related activity, then I'd say yes.

Like voting.

does being a socialist, a radical, and/or an anarchist necessitate actual activism?

Oh boy, ILX! That's where I'm a political activist!

https://media.vlipsy.com/vlips/AibjjLYi/preview.jpg

Does this also work for fascists. Like if you spend all day on nazi websites making racist posts in favour of totalitarian regimes this isn't proactive enough to qualify you as a fascist? Asking for a friend.

It only appears to apply to the left.

Does this also work for fascists. Like if you spend all day on nazi websites making racist posts in favour of totalitarian regimes this isn't proactive enough to qualify you as a fascist? Asking for a friend.

Lock thread. Turn out the lights when you leave.

if the nazis were as inneffectual at achieving their goals as the internet left????? oh my god dude if only

sounds like literal utopia to this jew but i guess you thought you were making some other point

good job responding to this thread guys, rather than leaving in its "one and done" state with just j's reply

w/ his fascism comment plax seems to have come around to esby's point which is that bitching on the internet is the same as performing politics

Of course bitching on the internet is performing politics. Of course there are many other ways that politics get enacted. This is all very easy.

define your terms people idk wth you mean. who are leftists? what is activism? ineffectual at/for what, to whom, etc

who are leftists?
*comedy answer redacted*

what is activism?
seems p self evident: posting on the internet, voting for a 90 yr old white guy, standing in the lobby of a bank 7 years ago

ineffectual at/for what, to whom, etc
i personally think the leftism project is going fine but the participants themselves don't seem to think so, cf. 20000000000 posts on this website

I doubt the question was directed at you tbh.

leftism

It was a great album at the time, not sure how I'd feel about it today.

are y'all motherfuckers just mad that we've quarantined the existing political threads, so you've taken to starting new political threads in a desperate attempt to get people to engage with your bullshit?

there is only one functioning politics thread on ilx, dealing with the politics of a functioning country strangely enough

and we havent even sorted out our election results from several months ago

Canada begs to differ.

it may beg away it lives in a semi d

my impression is that when the demographics of voting shift (and they will, unless ~changes in mechanics~), there will be little mercy, because none was shown, and the people thus in power are therefore kinda...merciless assholes.

The likes of Corbyn and Sanders were the compromise solution. Should demographics take over => guillotine time!

the anger of the toiling masses is as nothing compared to insatiable bloodthirst of the parlor radical

wouldn't count on demographics for another decade at least, probably more like 15 years

Demographics aren't going to combat contemporary capitalism. Jeff Bezos's zillions aren't going to disappear when he finally eats it.

idk if he eats his money it will quite literally disappear

https://communemag.com/

Esby is a VL

and you sir are an R lmao

Folks, you know what to do

https://i.ibb.co/QD8C8QQ/rolleyes7cm.gif

i don't understand VL and R and what any of that is ... just that commune mag is shutting down partly because one of its (former) editors was called out as a rapist

I mean,you could guess what he means by R. Pretty obvious

esby ist eine verbotene Liebe.

R Kelly?

mein geist ist sagen mir NEIIIIIIINNNNN

i personally think the leftism project is going fine

probably should be letting this thread sink down the page into oblivian but I just wanted to thank you for this, I have had an especially miserable day but for real snarfed my beer when I read this and feel better now

whatever happened to the Oblivians?

we got the Reigning Sound, which was even better

Loudlybtelling you all to read this interview with the Out of the Woods collective:

On the ecological roots and uneven effects of COVID-19, communist technics and agroecology, "Planet of Humans" and ambient volkishness, putting disaster communism in a field of ecological ideologies, and staving off fatalism during breakdown and crisishttps://t.co/c4unfPrdLu

— Kai Bosworth (@kaibosworth) May 14, 2020

The now well-documented failings at Commune magazine are not Commune's failings alone. Out of the Woods stands in solidarity with the survivor, but understands this solidarity to extend to an examination of our own structures. This statement addresses theses issues and commits to further actions.

Content note: rape, failures of accountability

In December 2019 we became aware that a founding editor of Commune magazine, in which we have published, is a rapist. In addition to writing for Commune in late 2018, some of us have personal connections with people who have been involved in Commune’s editorial team. For one OotW member these are close ties of friendship.

We were encouraged by Commune's initial response, which included the rapist stepping down from involvement, a restructuring of their editorial collective and a commitment to an overhaul of accountability processes. We also resolved to keep an eye on developments. We should have made this resolve public. We are now saddened and angered to learn of significant and persistent failings by Commune, which contributed to: 1) the breakdown of the rapist’s accountability process; and 2) a failure for Commune to make itself accountable.

These failings have been carefully detailed by the survivor, Leila Raven, here. We offer our unstinting solidarity to Raven, and reiterate her demand for Commune to cease operations and distribute any remaining funds to Black-led survivor movements. We also note that Raven and one of her supporters in the accountability process have expressed disappointment at the uneven distribution of the labour of accountability within Commune. This corresponds with our understanding: that it was disproportionately undertaken by female survivors within the Commune collective, and was hindered by the disengagement and poor communication of others.

Further, we fully agree with Leila Raven: this is not Commune's failure alone, but is part of a much broader and persistent failure on the left – and in particular on the white left – to develop an adequate, sustainable approach to accountability. We are part of this left. Further, we are acutely aware of the similarities between Commune and ourselves: namely, that we are a geographically disparate collective, many of whom have not met each other; that we are too white; and that we have no accountability procedures in place. We are also overwhelmingly male. We thus hear Raven’s call for further accountability to be addressing us, and to provide clarity, urgency and additional requirements to changes to our collective to which we had already committed. We are hugely grateful for this, and for the labour of abolitionist accountability movements more broadly.

We believe it is incumbent on us to create these processes now, before they are called upon. Measures for transparency and accountability must be in place before an episode of violence or abuse is brought to light, not after. This is a clear lesson from the failures at Commune.

We are thus committed to developing a procedure through which people can raise concerns about either the collective as a whole or individual members thereof, with clear expectations for how this information will be acted upon. We will ensure this statement is easily accessible. This will be complicated by the fact that some of our members maintain a degree of anonymity for security/employment reasons, but such an issue should not be an excuse for us collectively. We will be publishing more on this as soon as we can, and no later than the end of June 2020.

We have already committed to expanding core membership of Out of the Woods to address the disproportionate number of white men involved. Leila’s post reminds us of the importance of this task. It also leads us to commit to new members: 1) being empowered to determine Out of the Woods’ direction of travel, in all senses; 2) not being burdened with the labour of making us accountable. Accordingly, we will be putting in place onboarding procedures.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact any, some or all of the below. Not everyone currently active in the collective is listed as some members wish to remain completely anonymous.

from US Politics thread

In the better world where all housing is social (either state-owned or communes or co-ops of somekind) or personally owned, we wouldn't be evicting people for failure to pay, obviously. In the event that someone was so loud (or whatever) it became a problem - which comprises what percentage of evictions? - then we're going to have to work up a system for how to deal with it! Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

If only it were so simple ... like, if only money didn't exist or the only problems with shared housing were noise violations. If only ... there are so many complex issues I have observed (mostly in terms of the aftermath / dealing with fallout and mess). Some of them are very "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Vienna has one of the best housing situation in the western world and it's a very complex system that uses a mix of social housing, a whole set of rent control that varies rather wildly and new developments, it works much better than what we see throughout the US and Canada. Simple solutions for complex problems never work for anything, it's rather the opposite in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting that the only conceivable problem is having a 26-piece drum set in your one bedroom apartment, that was an example - but the greater point is that whatever problems arise, they would not be dealt with by evictions as we know them today. In a socialist future where housing is a guaranteed right, we would have to create a system to deal with these issues.

ie no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances, which is what evictions are in our current world.

here are some of the issues I have observed that have led to evictions/threatened evictions in communal/co-op housing outside of failure to pay rent or contribute labor in lieu of payment:

sexual assault
racism
homophobia/transphobia
substance abuse
mental illness
cruelty to animals/negligence of care for animals
romantic breakups
lack of concern for safety of others in terms of external security (failure to lock doors, etc)
slovenliness/bad housekeeping
hoarding
unsafe construction, maintenance, etc.
theft
defending the "wrong person" in a dispute

ie no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances, which is what evictions are in our current world.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:39 AM (twenty-six seconds ago)

people should have the right to housing, but to me, that means, if they get evicted, there would be other housing available, not that they have a right to stay where they are no matter what.

That would be the system I'm talking about that has to be figured out.

Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

Regardless, you're pointing to various outlier cases for eviction but those are not the prime movers of eviction in our world - Nazis running dogfighting rings are not running up the getting kicked out numbers. Women, persons of color and families with young children are more likely to be evicted than other persons or groups.

Once you take rent out of the equation, you're simply dealing conceptually with far fewer cases overall.

Let me know when the goalposts are in their permanent position, milo.

? That was in the part you quoted initially.

Like, the entire last half of what you quoted is about the need in an evictionless/landlordless society to deal with problem cases.

you were arguing that evictions shouldn't happen ever.

and the things you were saying, and the ways you were saying them, made it sound to me that you really are trying to re-invent the wheel, and like, you have little experience or knowledge of actual practice of communal/co-op housing in the US.

Simple solutions for complex problems never work for anything

tell that to finland
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

which is why I revived this thread ... as people actually "doing the work" will likely shake their heads in recognition of the unfortunate real problems that radical housing has. And I am not advocating for the status quo here, I'm saying, "people are messy. community is messy. The work can be hard."

Yes, and I repeated it like five posts ago - no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

That's what an eviction in our world is. You don't get kicked out after failing to pay rent for 90 days to be moved into another home.

How easily can the model be replicated in other European countries?

The Housing First model can be replicated even though housing conditions may vary from country to country in Europe. Providing permanent homes for the homeless should be a target instead of temporary solutions.

There is no quick fix to all life situations but a solid base provides the foundations upon which to improve the welfare of the homeless. The first step in change is the change in attitudes.

id need to know a lot more about the housing situation in finland before i was in any way convinced anywhere else in the word had one simple finnish step to success tbh

I wasn't asked about "communal/co-op housing in the US," I was asked, in what you quoted, about the principle behind an objection evictions and landlords.

That principle is centered in no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances. It's also fundamentally a question of remaking society, because you have to get rid of the landlords doing 99.9% of the evicting to start with.

so, in the meantime while we're waiting for the abolition of private ownership of real estate, what should we do, milo?

You've to count houses and people and then do a lot more than counting to determine housing need before you start looking at who owns what ime

"get rid of landlords" is worthless cant

That was answered in the other thread, right under the part you quoted!

But no one should ever, under any circumstances, be rendered unhoused - which is what eviction in the here and now reality does. And if you get evicted in the here and now, no one should tell you not to fuck up the drywall or that you're a bad person for doing so.

Because the initial offhand comment was about Trump being a bad guy because he'd be the sort to do property damage after getting evicted.

So while we're waiting for the abolition of real estate speculation, the landlord can pay to resod the yard where you did a donut on your way to sleeping in your car.

the landlord can pay to resod the yard where you did a donut on your way to sleeping in your car.

but we do still live in this world and the abolition of capitalism is nowhere in sight, so in the meantime that's your brilliant idea of what to do? pull your finger out.

xp - uh, you know that depending on the amount and type of property damage, that could result in more people getting evicted for life safety hazards and unhabitable conditions ... but hey, everything is so simple in miloworld!

Yes, my brilliant idea is to not clutch my pearls and shame people who are being put on the streets. Part of capitalism is risk - even if you're a sweet little elderly person with five rental properties, you're taking a risk that when you evict someone, they might do some damage on the way out. Tough.

i should stop posting on this thread, as I value ILX as a respite from work, as opposed to a reminder of the stress of my work

from "no more landlords" to "everybody but me shames the homeless" in zero steps

your substance is showing, buck

you know, I would have plenty of sympathy for the sweet elderly lady if the person she were evicting was like Donald Trump, an abusive, racist rapist douchebag.

Not everybody but me, specifically the person who illustrated Donald Trump's badness by saying he'd do a donut in the yard after getting evicted in the other thread - the genesis os my basic statement of principle that no one should be evicted, that no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

glad to know that Donald Trump can crash on yr couch until he finds a place, milo!

trucker hat guy from Gear!'s house

absolutely love threads like these

A: lol you just love bitching about stuff and not offering solutions, what should we do then?
B: well they do it like this here
C: lol whatever there’s more to it than that, but in the meantime I’m going to outright condescend to you and then call you the dickhead for reacting to it

There must come a point, at some point, where certain ilxors might think how their posts might read to someone who, for example, might never have voted for the winner in a general election in their life, who might still be living at home at an age their parents had independent lives and families, who might be spending tons of money on shared accommodation. Surely you might consider at some stage how someone faced with a future as bleak as the one oncoming might react to being constantly prodded for sport on here by people pretending to agree with them? If you’re not going to bother engaging properly then killfile and move on, tbh.

Milo, what do you think of the housing first program in Finland?

from "no more landlords" to "everybody but me shames the homeless" in zero steps

your substance is showing, buck

Sure, if Donald Trump loses all of his money and goes to New York prison for a couple of years, it would be unconscionable for a 80 year old man to be pushed out to living on the streets. This is a hill I'm overjoyed to die on.

tell that to finland
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

I've read a lot of housing first and no, it wasn't as simple as 'let's end homelessness uh'.

The Donald Trump hypothetical is so wild, why is it even used?

milo, I don't use killfile so I know there isn't some phantom poster you are arguing with whose posts I have hidden. Maybe if there were I wouldn't be so confused.

i never have any idea where milo finds all this patience. a real inspiration.

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

xp real mystery why this site can’t attract younger posters, isn’t it

As someone who works with homelessness quite a bit, I've seen situations were evictions saved lives.

Homelessness on the other hand is a scourge that shouldn't happen to anyone ever.

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

yes! yes it did!

milo, I don't use killfile so I know there isn't some phantom poster you are arguing with whose posts I have hidden. Maybe if there were I wouldn't be so confused.

? You quoted me, from another thread, where that Donald Trump post is which lead to the offhand comment about the ethics of doing donuts if evicted, then took issue with my lack of 40 point plan to achieve the goal of problem-free housing in a world without evictions.

For instance, you took issue with my lack of planning for problematic individuals making others' lives difficult:

people should have the right to housing, but to me, that means, if they get evicted, there would be other housing available, not that they have a right to stay where they are no matter what.

But as I pointed out, I referred to that in the very bit you quoted initially:

In the event that someone was so loud (or whatever) it became a problem - which comprises what percentage of evictions? - then we're going to have to work up a system for how to deal with it! Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people.

no one should ever be rendered unhoused under any circumstances.

ok. as a declaration of principle that's very broad, but not bad. a lot of us would subscribe to it as a worthwhile goal. but, considered as an ethical principle, in no way does it stretch to justify willful damage to a rental property, simply out of spite. that's your own particular ethical addition.

you do realize that people who, through spite, do damage to a rental property on their way out, are the same people who also are most likely to be selfish shitheads who trash that property when they are living there. uh, don't you?

wait are people joking or did this argument really start over the idea of donald trump becoming unhoused

It started because "Donald Trump is the kind of shitty person who'd do donuts in the yard because he got evicted" (re: White House lawn being dug up). My statement was that that was a bad example of Trump being a shitty person because you're not a bad person for lashing out after being evicted.

seriously though, one thing that could help a lot of folks out (in addition to actually building affordable housing) is improving and expanding the Section 8 voucher system and removing a lot of the really bad regulations about grounds for eviction from public housing.

It started because "Donald Trump is the kind of shitty person who'd do donuts in the yard because he got evicted" (re: White House lawn being dug up). My statement was that that was a bad example of Trump being a shitty person because you're not a bad person for lashing out after being evicted.

The one person it hurts the most is the tenant who lashed out, most of the time it follows him and make it harder for to find new rentals, especially with NGOs who operate with tighter budgets.

Actually this is how it started:

Trump is exactly the sort of person who, facing an eviction notice, would do donuts all over his own front lawn.

― OrificeMax (Old Lunch), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:30 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Bad example, everyone getting evicted should fuck the place up.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:35 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

um, no, speaking as someone who worked for a small scale DIY property manager

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:40 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

I'm good with "most" there, ftr

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:41 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

"most everyone"

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:41 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Everyone. Landlords shouldn’t exist.

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:55 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

yes yes I know but here in the real world some of them are still cool/actual humans/nor corporations, sarahell to thread

― howls of non-specificity (sleeve), Monday, November 9, 2020 5:56 PM (yesterday)

and then milo went from "Landlords shouldn't exist" to "In the better world where all housing is social (either state-owned or communes or co-ops of somekind) or personally owned" ... and then I had the gall to bring up real world examples of social housing and evictions, and how some of these cases are super fraught, and even without the economic issue, there are still evictions and difficult situations and people do bad things ... and milo somehow equated me saying this with being in favor of people being made homeless?

also to split hairs trump is not being evicted strictly speaking, the term of his lease has ended and it was not renewed

sarahell gods blessings be upon you for bothering to engage with this ridiculous bullshit

milo somehow equated me saying this with being in favor of people being made homeless?

I have pointed out that your argument - that I ignored where "cases are super fraught" is simply untrue. I talked about it in the very thing you quoted - "In the event that someone was so loud (or whatever) it became a problem - which comprises what percentage of evictions? - then we're going to have to work up a system for how to deal with it! Perhaps after various processes of noise abatement fail, we'll have social housing for noisy people."

No, I did not list every eventuality that would need dealing with but that's pretty explicit that there would be issues and need for a system to deal with the eventuality.

haha fuck landlords tho really

fuck the world don't ask me for shit
cos everything you get
ya gotta work
hard for it

I've read a lot of housing first and no, it wasn't as simple as 'let's end homelessness uh'.

don't be so obtuse - the animating idea behind housing first is one that is so radical because it is so simple: solve homelessness by giving homeless people homes, no strings attached. of course there is a relatively complex web of civic institutions, landlords, politicians etc that had to be engaged and cajoled to deliver this, and people had to negotiate complex legal issues, property rights, land/property acquisition etc. but by underpinning their approach with a very simple idea they were able to wrestle with (and in many cases overcome) all of the complex pathologies that feed into, birth, and thrive on homelessness

and the absurd thing, that made me put this argument in this thread, is that you seem completely oblivious to the fact that these ideal types of housing (or close to it) and they have systems! There are people and groups actually doing non-capitalist housing! And these cases that I brought up, are examples of actual cases that people in collective housing have had to deal with. And in some cases people got evicted. And some of the evictions saved lives, and some were kinda bullshit people bullying others, and some were just ... fuck, can we just split this building in half or something ???

haha fuck landlords tho really

"I have these enunciated absolute propositions and I stick by them absolutely. I have also mentioned many exceptions to these absolutes and when people object to my absolutes, they do not give me the credit I deserve for mentioning those exceptions. However, I do not waver in any way from the absoluteness of my original propositions, whenever that suits me better."

-- Albert Einstein --

oh no won't anybody think of the landlords

Lol, this complete mess boils down to “landlords are people too”?

no. It's more like, what if "the landlord" is a group of comrades and they want to evict someone for being a racist who starves their dog and did unsafe electrical wiring that could burn the building down.

Sounds like Finland 'thought of the landlords' and included them in achieving their solution.

housing co-operatives are not landlords they are housing co-operatives

Donald Trump is the kind of fuckcrustable tenant from hell that would do some general chumpfuckery

Landlordy needy drinky 😔

okay, let me know when y'all agree on what is or isn't a landlord and who can or can't evict someone without being considered a horrible person

and if a house cooperative wants to evict a member...?

Don’t make me tap the sign lads

don't be so obtuse - the animating idea behind housing first is one that is so radical because it is so simple: solve homelessness by giving homeless people homes, no strings attached. of course there is a relatively complex web of civic institutions, landlords, politicians etc that had to be engaged and cajoled to deliver this, and people had to negotiate complex legal issues, property rights, land/property acquisition etc. but by underpinning their approach with a very simple idea they were able to wrestle with (and in many cases overcome) all of the complex pathologies that feed into, birth, and thrive on homelessness

I'm not being obtuse, it is complex. I think it's important to underline the difference between the concept of the idea and then the effort required to make it work. And to be fair, homelessness and rental costs are two related but different things. I was taking Vienna as an example of a complex rental system that works at reducing costs and make affordable living available to most people, which doesn't end a homeless problem, but does help. In order to eradicate homelessness you need another set of policies (that required 12 years in the case of Finland) that are, as you described, also complex.

None of these solutions came from 'fuck landlords they shouldn't exist' which is a simplistic (and negative) approach to something that requires a ton of effort and invention.

and if a house cooperative wants to evict a member...?

― the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Tuesday, 10 November 2020 20:29 (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

do you think the definition of a landlord is someone who evicts someone?

no. but milo makes no distinction in that regard. eviction justifies malicious damage, because eviction entails a risk and the evicting party is a capitalist in all cases in milo world.

what distinction do you think should be made?

Btw cannot tell you how cool it is to see an interesting thread revived with a dead argument from yesterday for the purposes of stirring shit, and to come in and see at least four people jumping on one person, really makes you feel welcome as a leftist on the board. Absolutely do not care, btw, if you’re justifying this to yourself out of anything other than personal dislike, because some of us manage to not follow around posters we don’t get on with from thread to thread for... I’m not sure the reason exactly, and I can’t admit to caring much.

I’m trying to have a conversation with Milo which is why I asked him about Housing First in Finland, if you keep answering to the shit, surely it won’t be a good discussion.

uh I revived this thread because I was mentioned in the other thread but the other thread had like hundreds of new posts since, so I revived this thread because the post in question smacked as an example of "bitching loudly on the internet" without knowledge or engagement in actual radical or anarchist praxis ... but hey, you dislike me so much you have me killfiled so ...

I swear conversations are better when you assume someone else experiences and knows stuff, I’m certain Milo has some valuable experiences with radical and anarchist praxis.

fuck landlords they shouldn't exist

welcome back, Left!

This and the US politics thread at present have convinced me that I need to take a step back from ILE.

See y'all on ILM and ILB.

Is there seriously no rent control whatsoever in the UK?

Don't see how actions could be taken without ideas first, don't see ideas would move around in people's heads and from person to person without communicating (perhaps in a bitchy way, online)

xp

Ed Miliband got labelled a dangerous communist for putting a "progressive"* rent capping policy in his 2015 manifesto

*i.e. not very bloody good really!

My in laws lived in a flat with fixed rent and it was an absolutely perfect example of how it should work. They ended up having to leave the flat after the landlord did a load of refurbishments so to be allowed to raise the rent and after that they had to move. It was really sad when they had lived there for over forty years.

Fuck renovictions.

what's the trendy term now ... "iterative"? It's an "iterative" process -- people have ideas and "bitch loudly" and then test them and see if they could work, and then refine the ideas and the "bitching loudly" and then maybe that results in different ideas or methods that better accomplish the ideas ... there is so much to bitch loudly about though, as a leftist. Keep bitching!

My in laws lived in a flat with fixed rent and it was an absolutely perfect example of how it should work. They ended up having to leave the flat after the landlord did a load of refurbishments so to be allowed to raise the rent and after that they had to move. It was really sad when they had lived there for over forty years.

― scampus fugit (gyac), Tuesday, November 10, 2020 1:08 PM (three minutes ago)

Ugh, that sucks. Was there a system where they got a payout or any compensation based on the length of time lived there and their ages?

what distinction do you think should be made?

housing is a physical space. a housing cooperative may define itself in such a way that it does or does not control who may occupy the physical spaces that fall under its agreement. if it is defined so that it may evict someone, then it may evict them. eviction is not a necessary function of a housing cooperative.

Is there seriously no rent control whatsoever in the UK?

You won't find too many UK based ILXors objecting to milo's opinion of landlords.

You don't get evicted from a co-op. You get your membership terminated resulting in losing the right to occupy the suite. The distinction is that the co-op, to various degrees, determine how that termination occurs, rather than an external body such as your local tenancy branch or government office. eg. by a 50% or 90% or unanimous vote of the members, with or without cause etc.

the distinction being that a co-operative is a community of some sort. while we can talk about the toxicity of communities, the viciousness with which communities can treat difficult or problematic individuals, this is very different from being evicted by a rent-seeking individual or corporation.

any housing association that i've known or had any involvement with has had the intent of ameliorating or off-setting the harmful effects of landlordism. Although limited by resources, there is an idealistic intent (off communality, sharing) distinct from simply rent-seeking. One would hope though this is not always the case, that such projects would have processes for what to do when community breaks down due to conflict or the violation of its terms. You would hope that there would be systems for conciliation where possible and that eviction would be a last resort.

Part of the difficulty is that housing co-operatives are often small scale, with limited resources for handling difficult cases. What can you do with a particularly problematic individual when there are no resources to accommodate them elsewhere? If we were talking about local-government-owned social housing, which similarly seeks to provide housing for people, one would assume increased responsibility and duty-of-care for a problematic tenant. Housing is a right, even for people with addiction issues and mental health problems. Even for racists and homophobes (its worth noting that the list of things that cause individuals to be excluded from communities can include things that say some pretty unsavoury stuff about communities). The more embattled and limited the resources of a community are, the less that can be done to offset expulsion and exclusion.

However, these are all distinct problems from the problems of landlords. If eviction is "not a necessary function of a housing cooperative" can the same be said of landlords? landlordism is the most basic example rentierism, seeking profit not by doing anything or making anything but granting or withholding access to a limited resource: housing. Tenants don't pay money to landlords for something that landlords do for them personally, but because otherwise they would be evicted and, depending on their circumstances, be made homeless.

In the UK landlords are one of the most effective lobby groups; political support by both parties for ongoing evictions throughout covid one of their most recent victories. Frequently you will hear landlords playing up how difficult it is to be a landlord, how it barely makes any money! Often they will claim that since the combined cost of upkeep and mortgage payments is little more than mortgage, they barely break even. These are remarkable claims that completely gloss over the fact that these people are acquiring large assets they can subsequently sell that are simultaneously appreciating in value!

The flat above me is a small, two-bedroom council flat bought through right-to-buy and turned by a landlord (who owns properties all over the borough through private limited companies) into a miserable three bedroom flat with no windows in the shared living spaces which consist of a tiny kitchen and bathroom. Here there is no ideal of community, no social responsibility. There is nothing except the opportunity to pay this man's mortgage so he can acquire more miserable flats to exploit more overworked renters.

great post plax.

Yep. I worked as a mortgage advisor for a while (my number one bullshit job!) and almost without exception, Buy to Let landlords with multiple properties are just greedy middle/'professional' class fucks with plenty of disposable income.

let's not judge Chairman Mao too harshly.

Yeah great post plax. Clearly there are always going to be problems which need to be solved, but the problems associated with everyone being housed are obviously preferable to those associated with homelessness and rampant landlordism. I don’t think expressing that sentiment requires you to have solutions for all those problems.

Good post, plax. A landlord who maintains rent at an affordable level and who doesn't skimp on upkeep is a potentially fine proposition, and these do exist – more so in my neck of the woods than in the UK – but they are so rare as to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It is a form of parasitism more often than not.

Plax has put the problem well. Whatever it takes to 'decouple' property from its owners, call it communism or something else.

Welcome back, xyzzzz

That's alright, thanks

I guess as much as I’d like to see western hegemony smashed and believe that Degrowth policies are the only way to even begin to address climate catastrophe, I’m not quite a full-on Maoist yet. I suppose my dirtiest secret is... I’m technically a landlord. I have an older home w a secondary kitchen. It’s not technically a duplex so the setup is somewhere between housemates and a full-on landlord/ tenant situation.

But if my renters ever decide to rise up and kill me it’ll probably be bc I had it coming

In the UK landlords are one of the most effective lobby groups; political support by both parties

both parties full of fuckin landlords, incidentally, and voting repeatedly against any control on landlords without declaring a hint of a conflict of interest

Bingo.

they finally did manage to get some amendment to the Fit for Human Habitation bill through parliament in 2019. Which is obv completely toothless unless you are wealthy enough to take your landlord to court going by some of the recent everyday horror stories of private tenants I've read.

fuck landlords

combination of dn and post there is p fitting

joined up with dsa finally, going to try helping out with the mutual aid group. going to try and focus on that instead of posting about left-wing politics on the internet which has been such a black hole for me the past year.

honestly, the reason I haven't joined dsa is that it would put me in close proximity with the kinds of people who join dsa (not all of them obviously, but the irony poisoned contingent)

honestly, the reason I haven't joined dsa is that it would put me in close proximity with the kinds of people who join dsa

hahaha i love this

lol see thread title

honestly, the reason I haven't joined dsa is that it would put me in close proximity with the kinds of people who join dsa (not all of them obviously, but the irony poisoned contingent)

― like, I’m eating an elephant head (katherine), Wednesday, November 11, 2020 11:01 AM (two days ago) bookmarkflaglink

Also the DSA believes in incrementalism and really exists mostly to sell newspapers (aka Jacobin) from what I can tell. Obviously prefer to have DSA that some centrist scum on city council or higher-up, but jesus, people really love political parties. Boggles my mind.

the number of politics people that just have a hard-on for meetings and committees is pretty depressing tbh

table you know there are lots of anarchists in DSA right

itt: ppl sneer at both being posting online and trying to do some actual good irl

Moaning online is praxis

sorry I'm being unnecessarily bitchy about this because despite DSA's (many) flaws Canada lacks a left org even 1/10 as effective in doing Real Things that actually improve people's lives from time to time and it bugs me to see ppl be dismissive about it

I'm not sneering at anything, I just don't trust and can't be around that kind of person, and they would probably also fucking hate me if not worse. it isn't bragging about anything and I wish it weren't like that

Nah I know I'm just being frivolous also I mean it a little bit, the revolution will not be po-faced

(it would also help if they did anything about the rampant sexual harassment issue)

Moaning online is praxis

I was horrified when a local councillor turned up on my doorstep trying to get me to attend a meeting last year. I only joined the party to support Corbynism. If I want to go into a room full of ppl - I'll go to a frigging pub!

after being subject to a fucking section 47 a couple of years back, they were the last meetings I'm ever to attend and unfortunately I had no choice in the matter.

i'm sure i'll meet annoying people in the mutual aid group but might also deliver some warm clothes or something. also it's like once a month. maybe it will suck as much as this thread? won't know until i try it.

oined up with dsa finally, going to try helping out with the mutual aid group. going to try and focus on that instead of posting about left-wing politics on the internet which has been such a black hole for me the past year.

― Give me a Chad Smith-type feel (map), Wednesday, November 11, 2020 6:48 PM (two days ago) bookmarkflaglink

I've been learning so much about the framework of mutual aid throughout this time! I've never been inspired to do the reading on anti-capitalist frameworks and my understanding has been superficial, but MA really taps into my lived experience.

I tried to do it where I live, but my block didn't need it (I checked, everyone was already taken care of and our block assoc president was on it), and my local Black-led movement home wasn't putting white ppl into direct service work because it's bad analysis & bad practice (white savior-ism, gentrification, things the Black left movement has already been accused of by centrist Black electeds who resent pressure from the left). Sooo I moved to the country and now I volunteer in a MA network where I don't even live, doing technical and administrative stuff.

I miss being tuned into my community, but I LOVE that the conversations in the MA space are abolitionist, radical, transformative.

Last night I watched a discussion among Dean Spade, Ejeris Dixon, and Mariame Kaba titled "We Keep Ourselves Safe" and took away this point: Mutual Aid work is always both of these things:

1. It meets immediate needs for survival in the community, and
2. It has to be based on a deep strategy to remedy the underlying causes.

Basically, enjoy!!!

I'm contemplating going DSA. They're doing great work in the NYC political sphere, endorsing candidates and putting resources behind them. But New York has the Working Families Party which is kind of a mid-point maybe between D and DSA? I've been registered WFP before, I don't remember why I switched. Probably to vote in a primary at some point.

cool, thanks for the info.

no idea how it's going to look in my area. the most visible slc mutual aid group has been accused of white savior-ism. really i just want a way to connect with people in this kind of framework because i'm very suspicious of traditional charity orgs.

you could stay registered as D and still give money to or work for WFP

i'm sure i'll meet annoying people in the mutual aid group but might also deliver some warm clothes or something. also it's like once a month. maybe it will suck as much as this thread? won't know until i try it.

― Give me a Chad Smith-type feel (map), Friday, November 13, 2020 11:55 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

this isn't about "annoying," it's about not wanting to put myself in proximity to blackpilled irony bros

Blackpilled people don’t join the DSA.

outside of the Blackpill Caucus of course

i'll be sure to report here if i encounter any blackpilled irony bros

this is not my experience

but mocking someone for avoiding, for my own safety, people who are somewhere on the spectrum between contemptful and dangerous is really changing my mind, gotta say

I'm certain there are sexist assholes of all stripes in DSA but I have yet to be convinced they're any more common than in any other political formation (though of course it is more galling/infuriating when it comes from a left org). which is not to say anyone should have to put up with it if they don't want to.

My main issue is that a majority of the DSA people I know are white and have a real fucking hard-on for telling Black people to sit down because it's all about class. Whatever their intentions, that shit is toxic and I want no part of it.

this is a very specific subcategory of asshole (and it isn't about sexism, per se, although if a person's first political principle is contempt and cringe then sexism could follow pretty easily, and I'm not sure what else they'd join except I guess alt-right shit

tbf, maybe I'm reading your posts wrong but your argument is starting to sound quite paranoid

My main issue is that a majority of the DSA people I know are white and have a real fucking hard-on for telling Black people to sit down because it's all about class. Whatever their intentions, that shit is toxic and I want no part of it.

― healthy cocaine off perfect butts (the table is the table), Friday, November 13, 2020 10:51 AM (forty-nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

this is a very specific subcategory of asshole (and it isn't about sexism, per se, although if a person's first political principle is contempt and cringe then sexism could follow pretty easily, and I'm not sure what else they'd join except I guess alt-right shit

― like, I’m eating an elephant head (katherine), Friday, November 13, 2020 10:53 AM (forty-six minutes ago)

yeah ... the thing with political activism in groups, for me, is that the interpersonal element ends up getting in the way of the activism. I spent decades doing arts organizing and a lot of the same issues come into play, except it's more serious, because it's politics, as opposed to a neighborhood art walk.

This is one of the problems with grassroots organizing that otherwise is something I like. I feel like it's growing pains, in a way, (hopefully) and that these groups will get better in terms of not being radical LARP-ing for white philosophy bros. Though it sounds like some of y'all have had good experiences, so it doesn't sound like something to be dismissed out of hand.

It's been almost 4 years since "The Fire" but I still remember the various attempts at organizing and it was really instructive for me ... mostly on a personal level to figure out what I wanted to get involved in, who I wanted to support. I am drawn to the "people that do things" vs. those that have meetings and talk about it and want the ideal perfect thing that doesn't end up happening. And I don't want to be dismissive of people drawn to the latter type of groups. I realize now that a lot of it is my personality.

i'm sure i'll meet annoying people in the mutual aid group but might also deliver some warm clothes or something. also it's like once a month. maybe it will suck as much as this thread? won't know until i try it.

― Give me a Chad Smith-type feel (map), Friday, November 13, 2020 8:55 AM (three hours ago)

I'm actually kinda curious what leftist mutual aid groups are like in SLC, because (as you know, but not necessarily other ilxors do) there's that aspect kinda built into Mormon culture, like maybe in SLC it will be more chill.

tbf, maybe I'm reading your posts wrong but your argument is starting to sound quite paranoid

― plax (ico), Friday, November 13, 2020 2:26 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

have you seriously never encountered any of these people

(what I do instead is donate which seems to be the next best thing, directly to people organizing stuff if I can)

your argument, and maybe i'm misreading you, is that you would like to join the dsa but "for (your) safety" cannot, because of some of the people who are members. This seems like a really strong allegation to make about this organisation, that it is literally unsafe to join. I'm not trying to suggest that you *have to join* or anything. there's lots of things i know i probably wouldn't enjoy for whatever reason, but this seems pretty strong.

Have you encountered them at DSA meetings, though? People you don’t like online who you assume would join the DSA doesn’t mean your local DSA chapter would actually resemble that.

My local was formed by a 9/11 truther who had to be put out to pasture. It’s not going to be perfect. But I’m going to wager that a group dedicated to the possibility of positive (primarily electoral) change would be overwhelmed with blackpilled nihilists who specifically reject the possibility of positive change.

would not be overwhelmed*

Likewise, the largest DSA chapter is the one that canceled on Adolph Reed for being a ‘class reductionist,’ so “they’re just class reductionists selling Jacobin” might not hold up to closer scrutiny!

i don't know what blackpilled means but i googled it and it sounds like its about incels and i though that was all v alt right

maybe "doomers" is a better word

but also like sorry to not want to hang out with people who call my friends fat and ugly?

blackpilled as a metaphor more generally means becoming depressed and suicidal about the state of things and ones inability to see light at the end of the tunnel

xp ok i have no idea what yr talking about

My local was formed by a 9/11 truther who had to be put out to pasture.

hahahah :( .... yeah, I think we might all be on the same page re the dynamics ... and some people might not want to engage until the "putting out to pasture" has been accomplished? idk really.

xps are your friends dsa members?

I don't think it matters all that much if any one person joins the DSA - for the vast majority it's going to be symbolic (especially until a chapter is large enough to organize action... and even then you're talking about outreach more than change), you're doing more 'work' volunteering at a food bank once a month.

If you attend a meeting and they're assholes, fair enough - but you don't know that until you attend one?

no, but my friends have been harassed by this specific category of extremely online irony bro

fraternities do volunteer work too, doesn't mean I want to be buddies with frat boys

blackpilled seemed to gain traction when Donald Trump won and some of the saddos that voted for him realized that he wasn't going to do a fascism. being blackpilled meant losing faith, as an alt-right guy, in the electoral process to make any real significant change, and either getting into the mindset to do a mass-shooting, or else retreat from society. people use it to describe left-wing people who have lost faith in the electoral process, and/or left-wing movements to make real significant change, but aren't looking to do a mass-shooting, though they may be looking to retreat from society. my wife calls me blackballed because of how cynical I am about politics (and because I like reading Jacques Camatte and Desert)

lol, damn autocorrect

this is veering quite close to 'all zoomers are bad people' or at the very least 'zoomers can't be trusted' imo

how much more do I have to mention the words "specific category" before it gets read

no, but my friends have been harassed by this specific category of extremely online irony bro

Are these extremely online irony bros DSA leaders? Members? Part of your local chapter?

tbh, you should not join the DSA because you're not comfortable with it and no part of this matters enough to do anything that makes you uncomfortable. But you appear to be crafting assumptions ("I'm not sure what else they'd join") based on people you don't like on Twitter.

I understand what you're getting at Katherine. It's a real thing that happens.

pardon me for making the wild assumption that people who identify as leftists might join leftist organizations

so you don't like leftists? I'm sorry it's not at all clear to me what you mean.

I’m not in the DSA or even the USA and I’m pretty familiar with these types, they come in all flavours of political identification ime but no one should be denying they exist in left circles. there is a noisy faction online that appears to be DSA affiliated. I don’t get how the doomer/blackpill thing is related but then I’m not american

how much more do I have to mention the words "specific category" before it gets read

― like, I’m eating an elephant head (katherine), Friday, November 13, 2020 3:54 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

They might join no organization (most likely), or they might join some Trot or Maoist group or the SPUSA (doubtful, RIP) or whatever.

The DSA is over 75k members now, a scattering of people on Twitter is a terrible way to assess that membership.

i thought doomer leftists sneered at the DSA now too tbh, but i could be mistaken because there’s always the chance my perception has become distorted however slightly by the literally poisonous nightmare machine the plutes have given me to look at the outside world thru.

xp.

given that there have been frequent reports, as above, of sexual harassment, white guys talking over everyone else, etc. that it does not seem like I am near a miraculous enclave of people whose hearts are in the right place, or exist at all

Jim in Van, nice to know someone else here reads and thinks about Desert.

milo what has your dsa experience generally been like?

The idea that Katherine would be crafting assumptions about sexism in political organisations instead of recognizing sexism exists in all spheres of society is exactly why someone like Katherine might be intimidated.

this kind of denial and/or defensiveness is nagl & way too familiar

I also said upthread that it isn't about sexism, per se, it's about people whose politics are based on contempt and making fun of people for things they deem cringeworthy

(for instance, there are people like this who aren't men; maybe fewer, but definitely nowhere near none)

I was initially thrown by the use of "blackpill" as I associate it with incel nihilism, but I get that it can be expanded to cover other stuff. I am surprised that so many people are playing it like they don't understand what katherine's describing at all. Yes, there are shitty men everywhere, but there's a specific type of shitty man that appears in left-wing circles. I'd associate it with shit like the "dirtbag left".

Yes, there are shitty men everywhere, but there's a specific type of shitty man that appears in left-wing circles. I'd associate it with shit like the "dirtbag left".

otm!

Sorry Katherine for interpreting it all as sexism and not reading thoroughly.

and yes, the dirtbag left is extremely repulsive.

anything left out here (mountain west) is slim pickings, my expectations are adjusted accordingly, but like rich salt lake liberals aren't gonna work for me as pals, you know. i've brushed up against a few and blech. maybe i just want to meet some people in slc who aren't rah-rah capitalists, who might have some class consciousness. they're everywhere in all your cities but our 'alts' here are all libertarians. i work in government i'm used to not actually getting anything accomplished. i wouldn't mind just meeting every once in a while for half a year in order to plan on picking that one (1) low-hanging fruit.

who am i kidding political people are probably just as tiresome as the skin-deep small-time capitalist instagram hipsters i felt like an alien among when i was trying to dj.

t/s: shitty men in the electronic music underground vs. shitty men in leftist politics

(should also note it doesn't just extend to joining or not joining organizations; I have a few friends and one close friend, for instance, who have shown signs of being like this, and as a result I don't fully trust them and probably never will)

personal animus towards wrongthinkers is certainly a lot more accessible than meaningful solidarity in a hyper atomized society there's no question about that

(see also message boards)

omg

Not sure if I'm misreading you Simon, but what katherine describes is not simply ascribable to "personal animus towards wrongthinkers" - there are solid reasons to be wary of this sort of person (see also: sexual assault in Novara circles).

blanket suspicion of 'a sort of person' rather than case by case differentiation strikes me as unhelpful at best, dangerous at worst?

like, a certain amount of circumspection probably a good idea in any social situation, dunno why the DSA requires anything extra

milo what has your dsa experience generally been like?

Initially, with the local group established post-Bernie, it was a reading and discussion group, fine but essentially just a social group for confused people interested in the left.

Over the last couple of years it has grown into mutual aid (community garden seminars, a ‘community fridge’ mini-food bank post-COVID, etc.), an emphasis on anti-ICE actions (neighborhood walks with cards about rights like the old ACLU bust cards), couple of small fix-it ticket events (fixing bulbs out on cars). Some local candidate endorsements this time around.

The most recent Zoom talk was on toxic masculinity. I skip most of the meetings and talks because I hate Zoom, I’m fine waiting until in-person activities can resume.

I do not disbelieve bad behavior happens or that some members are assholes, but I will reiterate that you can’t dismiss the entire organization because of bad Twitter people or know that your local comprises bad people unless you go to a meeting. Short of that you’re just saying “I don’t wanna” - which is a perfectly fine reason to not do something.

I mean Trump supporters sure w/e but these are people who ostensibly give a shit about humanity

I don't agree with the principle that nobody should join DSA b/c there's a shitty type of leftist dude who might be there. I do think it's absolutely fine (and kind of necessary) for an individual to express that this type of leftist dude seriously puts them off getting involved.

xxp

Do love that this bullshit thread title/premise has been upended hy good discourse and action itt

(no sarc...)

that's fair, but surely the solution is to join and cause a fuss about the culture, that's how things improve

I'm not dismissing the entire organization, just saying that it is likely that I would regularly come into contact with at least some assholes who probably are connected to other assholes

lol you are a ho xp to imago

oh like earth xp

Not if you don't feel safe enough to do that! Or even confident enough, or hell, motivated enough.

On a completely different note, I find it weird that I've just incorporated "leftist" into my vocabulary.

xxxp

xp - given the direction this conversation has gone I have zero confidence in my "causing a fuss about the culture" doing anything but getting mocked

thanks for sharing your experience milo

serious qualms about shitty endemic behaviour should and I hope will always be taken seriously in any leftist organisation worth the name

have there been recent DSA sexism dustups? I don't hear about this stuff anymore since I quit twitter

I should say 'sexism/harrassment/assault/etc'

it’s fine to dismiss an entire org because of shit experiences esp when the reaction to raising them is this kind of thing

except the part where I said I wasn't doing that? jesus christ

i don't read it as sarcastic.

xp I was going off the suggestion from another post above. I’m sorry if I implied it was your position. it’s not sarcastic though

got it, apologeis

*apologies

but surely the solution is to join and cause a fuss about the culture, that's how things improve

― imago, Friday, November 13, 2020 1:40 PM (yesterday)

hahaha that is the classic hetero cis-white guy response! ... this is why the term "emotional labor" is so common in the QTPOC left, as well as the focus on organizing amongst themselves where they are at the front, as opposed to waiting for the cis-white men (and women sometimes) to STFU.

not saying anyone has to, but wouldn't you have to join first to know?

You don't need to join a group to anticipate how its culture will be affecting you, especially in cases like the very vocal and very web-present dirtbag left.

web-present would be the important part, no?

ie

it’s fine to dismiss an entire org because of shit experiences esp when the reaction to raising them is this kind of thing

No one has described "shit experiences" with their local DSA or any related organization, AFAICT? There's an assumption that these bad people online would be pervasive in this entirely unconnected organization.

You don't need to join a group to anticipate how its culture will be affecting you, especially in cases like the very vocal and very web-present dirtbag left.

― Van Horn Street, Saturday, 14 November 2020 23:21 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

it seems a bit far to literally say that this organisation specifically is unsafe though don't you think?

Arguing that a very vocal online presence associated with a political persuasion wouldn't necessarily be present at IRL meetings associated with that political persuasion is more of a stretch, IMHO.

Like if some DSA dude harassed my friend online, I'd be pretty loathe to go to my local DSA for the first time. Don't really understand why that's so hard to grasp.

and there are plenty of progressive / left groups and causes to participate in that aren't the DSA. Like ... this argument just feels kinda absurd to me at this point.

but surely those would also be unsafe?

associated with a political persuasion

some DSA dude harassed my friend online

This is the assumption that I'm referring to. There hasn't even been an accusation that "DSA dudes" harassed anyone's friends, but that's the thread being run with?

Like if some DSA dude harassed my friend online, I'd be pretty loathe to go to my local DSA for the first time. Don't really understand why that's so hard to grasp.

― healthy cocaine off perfect butts (the table is the table), Sunday, 15 November 2020 00:20 (twenty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

but all that was claimed was that people, who might be the kind of people to go to a dsa meeting because they have leftist opinions, would be there and subsequently it was implied that it was unsafe.

I guess I didn't take it that way. I took it as 'some DSA-associated people harassed my friend, and I don't feel good going to a DSA meeting as a result.'

but surely those would also be unsafe?

― plax (ico), Saturday, November 14, 2020 4:35 PM (thirty-eight minutes ago)

not necessarily, there are plenty of groups that don't have "those dudes" in them because they were formed by people who didn't want to have to deal with "those dudes"

but how can you be sure?

they restrict membership to womxn and non-binary ppl?

like one way to not have to deal with "those dudes" is to not allow dudes in yr group?

so the "specific category" is men or leftist men?

it seems a bit far to literally say that this organisation specifically is unsafe though don't you think?

I will leave it to each individual what they deem safe or unsafe for themselves.

so would i. but there is a difference between saying something would make you feel unsafe and something is unsafe

why on earth would you think I'm saying that someone is not entitled to feel how they feel?

dsa guy and his twitter gf pic.twitter.com/Rn4FnSUqTZ

— the once again welfare king (@singlepayertom) November 14, 2020

Pretty incredible how a bunch of dudes keep questioning the logic and making fun of a woman who noted that there are a ton of really abusive assholes associated with the DSA online, and that she thus didn't feel safe going to meetings of the DSA. Really beginning to understand more and more why ILX is such a boys club.

I don't see anybody making fun of anyone or questioning the logic of not wanting to go

in fact as far as I can see every poster has affirmed the idea that if one feels uncomfortable for whatever reason then one is being perfectly reasonable in declining to go

how about joining the group, expressing your concerns about the individual in question to the individual in question, and then if the issue is not settled to your satisfaction, expressing your concerns about the individual in question privately to the leader(s) of the group, and then if the issue is still not settled to your satisfaction, expressing your concerns to the entire group?

Yesterday @nycDSA endorsed 6 *amazing* candidates for City Council.

It's been one of the joys of our lives to be a part of the @DSAForTheMany slate & so @JabariBrisport and I wanted to properly pass the baton on to our new brothers & sisters in #DSAfortheCity.

📸: @karakul pic.twitter.com/KDuIfMg89V

— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) November 15, 2020

lol they gave them roses like in The Bachelor, drove around the city to all 3 candidates they're endorsing and took pics for the soc media. Genius! That was yesterday--today they're doing the Brooklyn ones apparently. I love to see it <3

We started the day with @tiffany_caban.

A career public defender, Tiffany's running in District 22 - my home district!

When she ran for DA, she radically redefined safety so that it leaves none of us behind. Her fight continues this year & she won't stop until justice is won. pic.twitter.com/nDEXZgMGWO

— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) November 15, 2020

how about joining the group, expressing your concerns about the individual in question to the individual in question, and then if the issue is not settled to your satisfaction, expressing your concerns about the individual in question privately to the leader(s) of the group, and then if the issue is still not settled to your satisfaction, expressing your concerns to the entire group?

tbf, though it's been a while since I've personally heard of such cases (again, off twitter), there were definitely some instances where the formal group/chapter mechanisms for dealing with abusers/offenders were clearly not adequate

zohran rocks

assholes associated with the DSA online

We just cleared that up but you decided to dip back to it for some reason, that's not a claim anyone has made.

Your local DSA chapter pic.twitter.com/ZsdNukqDKs

— Voodoo Pork (@Voodoo_Pork) February 18, 2020

lol

The next Obama is in DSA right now trying to score

— Khaled 🚌 (@kboulos79) November 18, 2020

yeah true maybe they should roll up into state capitols heavily armed

― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Saturday, 16 May 2020 18:13 (eight months ago) bookmarkflaglink

Woahhhh hang on a sec what did this guy know

Hey guy, same thing as anyone else I guess. maga idiots were rolling up into state capitols heavily armed last spring while everyone shrugged. and that if anyone left of David Frum were to do anything but bitch on the internet they’d be mowed down in a matter of minutes

never 4get

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/99f19f62d9ed48a084b4c5928d3aa98d/2400.jpeg