TOTW: Banning! Revisited

Long ago when Anews and related projects were in their infancy the topic of Banning was explored to discuss and develop ideas for physical spaces and to also consider how anarchists might employ these ideas to the online space as well.

All these years later many anarchists are still grappling with the idea of banning and after a recent incident in an online anarchist space it seemed a good time to recompose, remix, and revisit the original topic...

Within anarchist circles the idea of banning people from anarchist spaces has long been popular among certain people. Some argue that banning is perfectly fine and is in alignment with the anarchist principle of free association. Others say that banning people is not at all okay, saying it is by its very nature exclusionary and leads to certain people having more influence and power than others.

The topic this week is banning people from anarchist spaces. When and where is it okay to ban people? Who should be banned and who should do the banning?

In explicitly anarchist spaces, should ancaps and so called national-anarchists be banned, even though these people claim to be anarchists? What about leftists and other people who have no problem with the existence of a state? What about new people whose anarchism is mostly or completely contrary and/or in direct conflict to the anarchism of the people already occupying the space? What about fascists, pedophiles, cops? What if they bring good snacks and interesting conversation and (bizarrely) call themselves anarchists? What if they don't bring any snacks at all and just suck the life out of the room? Should everyone be given a fair say, place, and opportunity if they call themselves anarchists?

In terms of behavior, how many times should people be given a chance before they are given the boot? When should people be given time to change their ways, and when should people be immediately expelled? Should people be allowed to return to anarchist spaces after a certain period of time has passed? And how should all of this be carried out? Should formal procedures be written up about this? And will these procedures realistically even be followed if they were?

What say you, anarchyland?

There are 227 Comments

The Dangerous Space Policy let’s anyone be a sniveling dickhole to anyone for any reason just like in the real world, bro. We do weak shit and hide like cowards. We might be in the wrong but we brought more friends than you did. Deal with it!

Banning and banishment are artifices of enclosure , gated communities with sovereigns, land, homes, or servers with tenure/ownership. If you don't own a space, but you own your body, you can tell someone to never speak to you again, you can move far away. The online equivalent is blocking or ghosting. It's done more effortlessly online than irl, but it's also much easier to be harassed -or even just stalked without interacting with you- by strangers online, so it's a handy feature.

If there were no enclosures, no fences, borders, no castles, houses, no "circles" of friends, you could push someone away, make them leave you alone by shouting and throwing rocks at them until you them fade in the distance, but that wouldn't be banning.
Still, living in the wild, you would regard with apprehension all signs of some animal approaching you, all strangers before they gained your trust. Known predators (think of a feline, a bear, or a person) would not be given the benefit of the doubt. Flight or fight, but also measures to repel and indicate that they should stay away and not come near.

Both url and irl, it's more of a practical matter, rather than an ideological one, the means you use to keep you and your friends safe. Do you err on the side of hospitality or on the side of caution, the excess of which would be called paranoia by those who disagree.

that becomes a problem when it's the only option that people use or consider. which it usually does, because people are sad and unimaginative and feel powerless, and probably for other reasons too, but those are enough.

sadness has never led me to ban.
on occasion, it has led me to withdraw.
being imaginative makes me able to amuse myself without need for others.
and being away from others, i find no need to ban anyone.

Imagine a world where we can convert the fascists, pedophiles, and cops into anarchist comrades. This is a better than banning them from our spaces. More anarchists is better than fewer anarchists for when we revolution against the state and fascism.

Imagine a world where one would point the fault of an argument instead of stating it as if you were making it yourself.

There are other ways to handle such despicable people you mention, such as avoiding them by using your own intuition and good judgement.

Some people go as far as tracking them, registering them, or even hunting them.

it’s hard to avoid a ban-worthy person when they insist on coming to your space. A few years ago a guy kept bringing meat fast food into a vegan social center even when repeatedly asked not to. Some asked him to leave and he refused. He probably still has to eat through a straw, wherever he is.

And what do you make of the pedophiles who are already anarchists?

No such thing exists.

I know many pedophiles who are anarchists, some are left anarchists, others post left, many pedophiles are also communists/Marxists/left communists etc etc. I don't consider myself a pedophile but many teleiophiles would consider me a pedophile, and I am, for the most part, an anarchist. Not to mention for example people like Bey who are anarchists who work with NAMBLA.

Sticking feathers in your butt does not make you a chicken.

You may have met pedophiles who call themselves anarchists but you have not met anarchists that are pedophiles. See how easy this is?

Well if you want to close your eyes and pretend people like Bey aren't anarchist all i can say is your gonna have to clench them tight. Whatever you do don't look up Anarchy A Journal of Desire Armed issue 19.

the articles you continually reference were written in the 1980s when anarchist authors and the entirety of the milieu (and adjacent radical milieus) were exploring ideas, language, and critical thinking on subjects not yet explored as such in these contexts. many of them retracted, revised, abandoned.

you keep having this same conversation (all over the anarchist webspace) where your boring, rote, mantra of "wolfi, bey, ajoda #19! wolfi, bey, ajoda #19!" is all you can provide to flimsily attach your despicable ideas to anarchy as laughable justification for your not-anarchist behavior. here's one: so no need to repeat yourself. but i guess you were banned there and from most other anarchist spaces so...

I agree there is less being written now-a-days on the topic, most of the new literature is scientific studies that I have very little interest in, and is used by "MAP" liberals who want to be accepted like homo-nationalist queers. However I think this period in the 80s represents a period of time where queer struggle and child sexuality were linked, prior to the demonization of pedophiles which lead to to a split between queer liberation and the struggle for child sexual autonomy.

Edit: and I should note these authors weren't exploring something unexplored, they were commenting on an ongoing movement, just as queer struggle was ongoing so too were there struggles for youth sexual autonomy. So this wasn't a purely academic pursuits and this "movement" didn't stop because people lost interest, but like other "movements" at the time because of actions undertaken by the state and international institutions. Nowadays we actually see pedophiles and sexual youths going through a similar nationalist movements as queers did the past two decades.

Youth liberation in general is something that anarchists seem to talk about much less now-a-days except in extremely superficial/condescending terms. So yes the texts i pull from are slightly dated, but where tgey are situated historically is also important. The reality if these relationships have not changed since the 80s, instead a campaign has been waged to draw divisions between the stances that can be found in these texts and the rest of "the movement" whether that be anarchism or queer liberation or youth liberation, because of a moral campaign against pedophiles.

So yes while some have revised their position to avoid this moral outcry the arguments laid out in thsse texts are just as applicable as they were 40 years ago, and they'll still be relevant in another 40 years.

You and others love to go on about how pedophilia is non-anarchist yet these arguments are perfect examples of how it is, and you provide no arguments to the contrary except this moral crusade.

People used to believe that demons would hide inside the heart or liver of the dead and cause the corpses to rise at night and spread the consumption to the living and to stop the spread of this disease the corpse must be exhumed and its demon infested heart or liver burned.

People have since revised or abandoned this theory.

Pedophilia is not a sexuality nor does it equal queer.
Fascism does not equal anarchism.
The State does not equal anarchy.

The literature is out there if you are interested, it's not hard to find. I'm not going to link the liberal science here though, my point isn't to convince you, it's to discuss the moralism. And you won't convince me otherwise. If one supports the autonomy of children its impossible to avoid this topic.

why have discussions at all?

one can support the autonomy of children and still oppose the sexual abuse of children by adults. one might call those people who support the autonomy of children and oppose child sexual abuse anarchists. once certainly can not call someone who supports the sexual abuse of children an anarchist.

is opposing child sexual abuse by adults moralism?

it can technically be framed that way by a troll who can barely contain their smug giggles about how clever and superior they are. the only thing worse would be if they are sincere in saying that. either way, the backhand is appropriate imo.

I admit I am clever, perhaps a little smug. And saying I'm superior are your words not mine. But I am not a troll, or atleast I do not intend to be, as I am sincere in my positions.

In abstract terms like these? Yes. If you know a child or we're a child who has been abused then yes it is very understandable to have anger directed towards that person (though these emotions take many shapes for different people). The problem in my eyss is a abstract moral hatred for "pedophiles" who you conflate with "child abusers". The reason this topic is important for child sexual autonomy is because some children have sexual relationships with children. And dictating for them how they should feel about the situation, in either direction, is where I think this moral outcry is "non-anarchist".

why assume the "hatred [is] blind" tho? aren't you just assuming everyone who hates is doing so blindly and you're calling it moralistic without any basis?

what if it's just my desire to redistribute some of the pain and suffering in the world because I can? maybe your entire concept of "moralism" relies on a strawman? maybe you're piling dozens of completely different motivations together and calling it "moralism" because somewhere, you learned that as a cheap rhetorical trick that works well on the uninitiated.

I assume when people say that they oppose pedophilia it is blind hatred because it is impossible to know all pedophiles. If you know that everyone who identifies as a pedophile has hurt you or someone you know, then I admit, my assumptions have failed me. Biut if not then your hatred of pedophiles (or better phrased the hatred of pedophiles I habe seen by certain people (perhaps you don't fall in that)) is based on a general moral opposition. You hate the not because they have hurt you or someone you know, but because their actions have been deemed immoral, irregardless of if their actions have actually hurt someone.

@s: "rapist are horrible"

A_Zed: "no, some rapists can be horrible."

Literally even leftists already understand this point. Restorative justice anarchists even though they still rely on moralism at times they also critique this motion of labeling someone a "perpetrator".

As well yes some people within a community/practice called "rape baiting" actually view rape as something they want. This is am example of how creating these broad moral categories of what actions are good or bad without asking the people involved fails. Another example is people who want to be murdered.

In your "rape baiting" failed example it would then not be rape.

Your other example is a person consenting to being killed.

Your trolling grows weaker every time your repeat the same tired nonsense.

Just log off.

I think your framing of these things as purely consensual removes the complexity these examples show.

I don't see the point in ignoring reality to fit ones world view instead of changing ones world view to understand reality.

Another example you may find interesting is of murder. Someone killing their rapist is still murder. Unless you want to change that definition too.

you're still assuming I use morality at all. I do not.

Have you even drilled down on different frameworks or are you completely reliant on dunking on old christian shit? Do you even know where you are right now? If you were on reddit or someshit, it would be less embarassing, assuming you're talking to a bunch of milquetoast leftists or whatever.

If you want to elaborate on your specific analysis go ahead. I am commenting on what I have generally seen here and of other anarchists that make these moral arguments. I don't personally see how one can oppose pedophiles generally without the appeal to morality. If you'd like to do so I'd be interested to see.

Appeals to morality a not just done by leftists though, many post left and egoists also rely on morality even though they pretend they don't.

I think you just want attention and as we've discussed before, that assumes you're worth talking to, along with your many other problematic assumptions on display here.

I don't really care for attention, but I like discourse. I think its interesting especially to see where other anarchists come from in opposition to this topic. Even though I find the general dislike of youth liberation by leftists to be quite boring, sometimes the way anarchists view children, and advocate to control their lives, I think sheds interesting light on not only this subject but on many. Especially the idea of protecting others from themselves, I think is a really interesting topic that I don't really understand how anarchists get there.

Pedophilia is not "children having sexual relationships with children." Pedophilia is not a sexuality it is abuse. You can pretend all you like but that does not make it true. Stay out of Portland.

Some children who have sex with other children identify themselves as pedophiles.

In addition child sexual autonomy also extends to children choosing to have sex with adults. Which I think is a more uncontroversial example of pedophilia.

I'll see you in Portland!

Don't come

See you there!

You will not leave the GSABF unmilkshaken.
You will not leave my dojo with your life.
Stick to the safety of your midwest NAMBLA meetups.
Everybody knows this.

You really want to kill me over some internet comments?

Definitely not carceral logic at all.

I'll see you there I guess, if you kill me you kill me. People wanna kill me for being queer or homeless too.

I am one of those amoral monsters who thinks the pedo discussion is FAR from settled. I myself hold an agnostic view on the issue. The only reason why moralfags like lumpy and that ass clown anon that you are communicating with carry the rhetorical day is because we are more the a generation dismissed from a sexual revolution. WHEN(not if) another one comes around I can easily see those 70s and 80s discussions coming back. People like Lumpy are like the anarchists who had a problem with homos before the sexual revolution. Unlike that anon idiot I will not take away their anarchist card. If there a value turn on this question(and it will have to be triggered by radical youth and not adults if it does happen) then people like lump a' dump and anon will be like those uptight anarchists of the past.

The key thing to take into count on the pedo question is whether it is even a hardware problem. I've looked into some of the data and I have yet to see convincing evidence that it's a hardware problem. This doesn't mean that you societally program for it(I don't support doing that for anything) but you do consider that IF pedophilia is not a hardware problem then maybe, just maybe, you be open to its emergence in some type of human psycho-geographic context however disgusted you might find this. The anthropological descriptive data already backs those who are agnostic or pro.

Im unsure by what you mean by a hardware problem? Do you mean like the idea that queer people are genericslly or neurologically "pre-programmed" to be queer?

I definitely understand the idea of a "agnostic" aproach. I think there's still a lot to be discussed within this topic, especially in the here and now where adults often hold much institutional power over children, though I'm unsure if this is not comparable to other relationships between groups of different institutional power.

The main thing I am trying to rail against is the erasure of individual experiences by the "anti" stance.

But I think in many ways, with the rise of the liberal MAPS right movement we may be seeing the beginning of a sort of a sort of paraphiliac sexual revolution. At the very least there seems to be some parallels to the Homonationalism of the early 2000's.

Whether it's 'programmable' or not. Murder rape and stealing for instance are hardware problems that do not show up in ANY human culture as something that can be acceptable on any level. Pedophilia on the other hand is a different story, while it's an extreme minority tendency in human history it has shown up on the record here and there and certainly the other paraphilias that involved pubescence have been more historically accepted then homosexuality for instance. I'm obviously using hardware and software as analogies.

I haven't looked much into the whole MAP online movement(you'd think someone like me would look more into it) but the little I have looked into it I find their positions compelling and certainly not refuted. I actually did do a some rabbit hole looking at b4 you act on twitter and I looked up some of their followers. From there I came across one or two papers which certainly put their arguments in good standing. The one paper I looked up was school girl porn and the fact that the data thus far does not appear to show that it's harmful. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some type of child porn that was non problematic(virtual?) that was consumed correlated with less molestation similar to mass available porn correlating with less rapes.

"Murder rape and stealing for instance are hardware problems that do not show up in ANY human culture as something that can be acceptable on any level."

I think this is where we diverge. I'm not concerned with things being acceptable or not. This is where I disagree with MAPs and Homo-nationalists, as they want to water down queerness and Pedophilia to be accepted by straights and Teleiophiles. I extend my anti-moralism to include not morally opposing rape murder or theft. Theft I think is the easiest to show how moral opposition fails, as many anarchists appropriate wealth (though I habe my own criticism of appropriation).

Other paraphilias are also extremely interesting. Wolfi, while most known for his coments on pedophilia, actually talks about beastiality too in "To be done with the economy of love". And I think arguments for zoopholia overlap a lot with this pedophilia discourse.

I am with you A-Zed on your quest to liberate the pure infant expression of empathic qualities from the stifling uncreative and destructive moralities of suppressed neurosis and enforced carriculums!

Perhaps it's just the spaghetti of words you've chosen but I don't really understand. I'm not looking for people to agree with me, especially since I would avoid most of the language you are using. What is your stance on the topic? What texts have influenced you on this topic if any?

But fuck curriculums! Fuck school.

The words I use pertain to the coming censoring you will experience. "I am with you" may have emphasized the need for support that one will require to voice your ideas about child expression and life values. I precede you. I am a Bey fan, tho' I defer on the mystical aspects of his dervish experiments.

I must admit, though I have found similar "platitudes" here I think anews and the irc have yet to (successfully) "censor" me. I do find find hostility to the subject matter in this space slightly disappointing but I think ultimately that is what is to be expected with these sorts of discussions. The moral outrage over Atassa, ITS, EE, etc is another example.

But I guess thank you. In a wave of negativity I guess it can be nice to see others who share a similar perspective, but I prefer to push people to elaborate on their own stance.

I'm actually not as familiar with Beys work but hos name has turned me on to the history of NAMBLA which I find interesting, even though I consider myself an anti-communist.

It's simply that the historical record does not show ANY social structure that made/makes provisions for them whereas I have see this with pedophilia. They can be perhaps euphemized and given another name in some means and ends separation such as war but for the most part they cannot be formally programmed for.

In terms of accepted norms I think there will always be some ongoing tension between the queer marginal and the normal general. I see nothing solving this in 3D physical existence. I think what anarchy does is air on the side of the marginal and not further weaponize norm with all its built in advantages. There will always be limits within social and societal structures as Enzo Martucci said.

Ah okay I think I understand, in the context of civilization, as morality as a civilized construction, I would agree I think to an extent. Murder rape and theft have almost always if not always been immorality categorized while pedophilia in the past has been moral. However i don't ghink murder rape and theft are as cut and dry. As you mention with war, which moralizes all three of these things, or even contemporary rape culture which justifies in many cases the rape of people of marginalized gender.

Personally I see the queer and the marginal as separate, and both separate from the normal/priveleged position. While that is a longer conversation, I think in short that while most anarchists are "supportive" of tge marginal position they aren't often supportive of the queer position. To me the queer position (including outside of sexuality and gender) is an anti-identity/anti-humanist/nihlist position. For example, queerness racially could be compared to afro-pessimism or racial nihlism.

Yeah brow! Don’t come! Or else I’ll get my boi Happy to steal your books, pepper spray your tent and put paper clips into your gas tank. Cuz, you know, we’re all about dAnGeRoUs sPaCeS and stuff!

I hope Happy wouldn't do that to me but maybe I don't know them that well. I do know they don't like being refered to as a "boi" though I can only assume that extends to the use of this la.guage. But i don't have a car so I'm not worried about that last one. I actually think the dangerous space policy is really interesting though since that is a reality for many marginalized people already. I have to navigate my day to day life with an understanding of how i may be subject to violence for various things, my politics, how I look, or how others label me etc.

Thank you for expressing interest in NAMBLA.

Mr. Bey hasn't written for our newsletter in decades.

Please have him get in touch.

I know you think NAMBLA is a joke (and in many ways they are as they're a rather watered down activist organization) but even the most vehemently anti-communist anarchist, i think can learn something from NAMBLAs history as a queer, communist organization centered around prison abolition and youth liberation.

I feel ya, glowie. Must be frustrating nobody taking your bait.

Why do cops need to infiltrate am ideology that already reinforces their own morality.

anarchy is an ideology to you? you think it reinforces an anarchist morality?

Unfortunately most anarchists construct it as an ideology, and as a morality, for example those here saying anarchism is anti-pedophile. They do so because they construct anarchism as a moral order.

I know you're desperately trolling but no. That's not how that works at all. troll logic fail. and no, nobody is required to debate you. fuck off back to your cheese pizza

Can you elaborate how this isn't how it works? And I agree no one is required to debate me, that's why i say the literature is out there and easily findable. These ideas have been around for a while and will only continue to grow. Also at least in my case I was the cheese pizza as a kid, not a consumer today.

As well I am sincere in my position. I was a child who had sex with adults so I have a vested sincere interest in the topic.

" I was a child who had sex with adults so I have a vested sincere interest in the topic."

Sorry, hon. I hope you've been able to begin healing from your past abuses. It's not your fault.

I pursued them and we had lots of fun. I think you're just jealous.

Please tell me how I'm a victim. Since you know so much about my experiences.

The absolute state of liberalism.

Pizzagate comfirmed. Jeff Bezos did not kill himself. I mean, Albert Einstein.

for all of your anti-moralism you have no problem vindicating yourself from criticism because of your identities. it's tiresome, especially when it comes in the form of an essay every time you do it.

when you inevitably respond to this do us a favor and limit yourself to less than a paragraph?

I have no clue what you mean. I've drawn parrellels between how anti-pedophilia is similar to anti-queer or anti-honeless politics but that's the only real connection I've made to identity. Could you please elaborate?

is the opposition to say... abuse, rape, murder, cops, prisons, the state and capitalism also moralistic ideology? is it bad? can anarchists oppose anything without it being moralistic? can anarchists even oppose archons? inb4 "s y s t e m s tho".

Unfortunately my analysis is highly reliant on systemic understanding. If that means you write it off then thats understandable but that's where I'm coming from.

I don't oppose rape or murder or even capitalism or civilization because they are "bad". In fact in many ways civilization is considered good since it creates food as a commodity, and houses people, it even created tge idea of goodness. I am opposed to civilization, capitalism and even Fascism because of how I fit in that system, no matter how much good a Fascist state where I'm in the priveleged identity, would do me, it would still extract from me. So with rapists and murderers I do not oppose them morally, though I personally dislike people who may hurt me or my friends.

But there is a big difference between someone who who been labeled by society as a murderer and someone who may have killed me or someone I know. I think blind hatred for the first is moralism, while dislike for the second CAN be influenced by moralism it us less likely to reproduce the that ideology.

I hope that explanation makes sense but I can elaborate if needed.

Banning beats a concrete milkshake to the dome! Banning is a kindness.

*throws normal milkshake*

*implies you're a lil bitch for claiming it had concrete like a bitch*

I'm glad that we can all be protected by anonymous censorship on It's my very own online safe space.

Try commenting on other anarchist news websites.

I used to be banned, but I changed, I listened to the wise mature people who warned me about my foul language and cruel taunts and I become a lovable kind softly spoken type who hardly comments anymore.

I think it all depends on what kind of space you want to cultivate. I think things like the "dangerous space" policy are ways to create a space that is anarchistic- a space without rules. But for a lot of anarchists, and anarchist projects, the goal isn't to make a space that is anarchist but instead a space for anarchists.

For a space for anarchists I think banning has been and can be a very useful tool, along many different lines. Not just banning people who may not be anarchists (such as if you consider national anarchists or ancaps to not be anarchists) but even people who you would consider anarchists that you just dont like.

In my experience these spaces always seem to do better when they have clear outlines for who isn't allowed to be in the space, so that there aren't disputes between the mod team or organizers in irl spaces, when a conflict occurs. If you don't want non-anarchists in your space for example you need a rigorous definition of anarchism, for example do you allow national anarchists? Ancaps? What about market anarchists? Do you only allow left anarchists? What about post-left anarchists? Etc etc. If you want people to also hold certain beliefs (or not hold certain beliefs) leftists have been using anti-opression policies for quite some time that achieve this. I don't think this kind of space can be non-sectarian though, since the rules will have to be informed by one set of principles (even if it's just as broad as left-anarchism).

In addition to having clear guidelines for who to ban or kick out or whatever having clear guidelines for the process is also helpful. Really all this banning process is, is a microscale justice system, where people are then judged on their beliefs or "speech" in the space instead of on actions in an irl space. So in this way I think the best (even though I still dislike them) models out there are those put out by left anarchists in the restorative justice school of thought.

I think this sort of left anarcgist aproach to organizing spaces is the best there currently is as a sort of in-between between spaces that are anarchistic, and spaces for anarchists. Other methods do exist, a lot of more personal online spaces are much like akin to "dictatorships" where the server owner makes and enforces rules as they like. In my experience this is less conducive to creating a space people besides your close friends aa t to be in but it's good at keeping out the "undesirables".

Personally I'm not a fan of the way left anarchists organize their spaces. But that's because I value anarchist spaces over spaces for anarchists. As well for those who don't know I obviously have a stake in wanting to be against bans since it would seem to me I am in part the problem person this topic is about (the dangerous pedophile). But even though I am currently the person this policy is aimed at keeping out I still oppose the idea of banning even directed towards the people I dislike. Just as i am against justice whether directed at me or my enemies.

I think, for those interested in anarchists spaces, there are ways of "organizing" or being in a space that can allow for things like free association/disassociation without the need of owners/organizers/mods etc. While dangerous space is one such attempt, I think also moving away from central/stationary spaces can also be helpful though they pose new problems such as how to be found by new people.

To add on to this with an example, a large reason I am now vocally supportive of pedophilia was because of these sort of "justice" systems of online spaces (though this was a different online space) where a group of post-left, egoist and anti-civ anarchists suicide baited, sent death threats, and other harassment to someone (i think they're a Marxist if it matters) who they said had been groomed and abused by a pedophile because they refused to breakup with that pedophile. During this time they actually turned me on to many anti-justice essays (in addition to pro-pedophilia essays) and I think this motion of anti-justice is also applicable to this notion of banning people from online am irl spaces. The texts I'd recommend are "The dangers of Child sexuality" which is both a pro-pedophilia and anti-justice text, and "Neither Prison Nor Policemen" which is a egoist anti-prison piece which I think also extends the critiques of typical egoist to also critiquethe notion of vigilante justice.

With both these texts I think the main take-away can be summed up with this quote from Foucault:

"The crime vanishes, nobody is concerned any longer to know whether in fact a crime was committed or not, whether someone has been hurt or not. No one is even concerned any more whether there actually was a victim."

I think with these notions of justice people are solely concerned with upholding a moral order, and i think this is especially prevelant in online spaces. People want to kill pedophiles not because someone is hurt by their behavior, but because they are designated immoral. People do nothing to confront Fascists, or even the Fascism in their own ideas yet want to signal to everyone how great an anti-fascist they are through call out posts.

Obviously the specific context I find myself in now is different then this context I was just in, but these processes work similarly. I think it is a much more interesting question to ask how we can be together in spaces without this moral order, instead of trying to rectify this idea of justice with anarchy. If one wants justified hierarchies it's already been laid out by leftists and their online spaces run rather smoothly though not anarchistically, but I think much has yet to be explored in these sorts of dangerous space policies and the anti-moral stances of ITS for example in the text Against the World Builders.

What is this pedo dogshit doing on my beloved anews?

"People do nothing to confront Fascists" ??? Where you been? You live in a cave? It's the only damn thing anarchists have been doing lately.

This is what I mean by appealing to the moral order.

I agree some people have been physically confronting Fascists, but there is also a large group of people who their antifascism starts and ends with saying Nazi's bad on the internet.

This is one of the more interesting @ topics imo: after enough years go by, there's the few dozen that come up over and over and I still love/hate this one, maybe most of all?

I especially hate watching people that I like and am getting to know, suddenly reveal a great deal about themselves with how they react to this issue, usually in disappointing ways. You can really fail epicly in either direction, you know? If you lean too hard. It's like a Turing test of functional anarchist values, separating the performances from something that might actually matter or be useful.

Many people are incredibly conflict avoidant these days and that ends up being the priority... which is the least interesting aspect of all.

Anyway, I try to make a lot of space for a lot of bullshit, not unlike the mods here. I'll share spaces (that aren't my house) with very obnoxious people that I openly despise and we can throw shade and threats and blow kisses, it's fun! The transgressions that are "actionable" should always be the most extreme ones, only. And ffs, do the work and fact check first, ya jackasses! ok, I'm done.

You say people are “conflict avoidant” these days. Do you think this is a personal trait that makes them weak and inferior from your superior “conflict seeking” ways? Or do you think that people avoid consequences like getting arrested? Only those whose preferred terms of engagement are arguing and bickering can boast of their love of conflict, those who would prefer physical aggression or lethal force, is wise in avoiding conflict that would lead to that, since jail is not enjoyable. Best to avoid everyone as much as possible and have a nice chill time. Unless you like writing letters from a cell.

no, I don't think that. what a bad faith question.

are you feeling defensive because you're one of the people I'm talking about in real life when you're not trolling here?

look! peak conflict! a sassy clap-back!
you're as tame as they come.
"no pinching, no eye-poking, no bad-faith comments, and don't you talk shit about my mother!"

who told you I wouldn't clap back? where do you think you are?

it's not a yapping contest. i'm further mocking your "disposition for conflict", just kneejerk bravado. if someone where to avoid your sorry ass, you'd take it as a win or that they're "conflict avoidant", when in reality you're just annoying as fuck.

wasn't really talking about people reacting to me directly? but your hostility is noted lol

Anarchist occupation excludes whoever we choose. All enemies of anarchy are not welcomed. Fascists get the knife. This is basics here.

I'm a rural anarchist-confederate and our club frequently hangs out at the local KKK bar. We sometimes play tag football against the local Klan chapters about once a month. At the end of they day they're just people and we can agree to disagree. I see no reason to ban them from the league as long as they let us drink at their bar.

maybe it just seems that way because shit posting is low effort?

I vaguely remember worker talking about how this place has long spells of stupid troll noise and then occasionally, a critical mass of thoughtful posters hang around for awhile. it's a shame cuz it's a good topic, oh well...

but yeah, few times I've met egoists IRL that actually believe this crap where any time they say something stupid or fucked up, everyone who challenges them is "just moralizing". it confuses ppl a bit, then they quickly realize that it's a cheap trick and move on.

shitheads with shitty rationalizations for their shit, nothing particularly interesting about it.

Agreed. This “anti moralist” thing is the dumbest trend to come out of anarchism, particularly when its obv fake.

Sooo wasn’t this topic supposed to be about about banning and not some pedo trollbshowing their whole ass and telling their life story and philosophy of the universe and everything?

To the topic, I think banning people online and barring people offline are both tools to be used for individuals AND groups that wish to do harm to the occupants of spaces. Sure many of these need be on case by case but in the example of cops or fascists a broader brush is obviously acceptable and well within anarchist principles.

The topic includes the banning of pedo-sympathetic trolls AND groups and not some righteous anarcho-dictator spewing out their rules on who and who CANNOT comment.

Yes, how telling indeed. This is verily incriminating and damning of all that be considered anarchism or anarchy. It reflects on them poorly and merits it be instantly discarded completely permanently.

I for one am glad that I am not an anarchist, nor anarchist adjacent, so this does not reflect on me poorly. I am a paragon on virtue still enjoying my good standing in society.

Shame on you, anarchists! Shame!

This is verily incriminating and damning of all that be considered anarchism or anarchy.

No, it is not. It's damning of the USA version of it, and of that alone.

I actually consider it verily damning for ADULT anarchists. If kids love learning about sexuality between themselves, child to child, leave the be!

I'm from Switzerland and most of my central European friends love @news and contribute comments, 'cos you know, English is an international language.

I agree. It IS damning. 2021 and this pedo shit is what dominates.

Maybe its time to move on to something more... vital.

Modern ‘Anarchism’ (i.e: militant liberalism) does nothing to confront the cop in your head. If anything, it puts it on steroids and teaches it woke vocabulary.

Apparently there are certain militant liberals up on here who should probably confront the convicted chomo in their head first.

Anti-woke bitch analysis vs chad acephale laughing hysterically at your brainworms

I already touched on this a bit in the abstract in my first comment so if the mods don't think I'm saying anything new feel free to remove this (as you've taken the liberty of removing many others).

For me the central question at the heart of this topic of banning is the larger question of what does a "space"/"project" etc want to be. And this is a question both for the "organizers" of a space, whether it's those who found the project or those who are responsible for its "functioning" such as the collective here. And it is also a question for those who use the space, what do they hope to get out of it. Obviously these two positions are not always separate.

So I think before I or anyone cant really have an opinion on banning in the context of Anews or any other project, we have to ask ourselves this question. I have been in this space specifically for very long, I made an account about a year ago but have only really started engaging with the space on the last month or so. With that said here are some of my thoughts on this question both from my own perspective and what I have learned about this space in my short time here. I hope others will also share their own thoughts on these question especially in relation to the larger topic.

What do I hope to get out of Anews?

Recently ive been listening through some of the old anews podcast episodes (I'm currently on 32). In several of these old TOTW discussions the idea of Anews (and LBC) as places for discussion especially "dangerous"/"controversial"/"challenging" topics really stood out to me. I consider my "online anarchism" as nearly entirely focused on "discourse", in the discussion, critique and spreading of ideas. And I am particularly interested in these conversations that are "pushing the envelope" of what conversations are ongoing. And while I prefer "sincere" conversations I am of the opinion that any sort of comment whether sincere or not from the commentor has the ability to spark interesting conversation, or at least interesting thoughts I may be able to take away from the comment and formulate against my own thoughts. In this way then what I want out of anews is a place where people who call themselves anarchists, or even anarchist adjacent (the anarcho-curious?) (Or honestly at least for myself I don't really care if they arent anarchists) are having conversations. Whether that's "trolls" commenting endlessly with no meaning to their comments, or million word essays on the most cutting edge of topics. What I am mainly interested in is a space people can come find whatever conversation is of interest to them. While in a way, I do find myself kind of sympathetic to the idea of culling or rephrasing comments to be more constructive to a conversation. I personally think once that sort of filter is applied there will be a limit on what kind of conversations can be had, and while while can be great in some regards (such as culling "mindless trolls" or even self proclaimed fascists) the possibility this could be applied to these "controversial" topics I think makes it undesirable to me.

What does Anews want to be?

I'm sure all of the collective members have differing opinions, so I don't want to ask this as a singular question but a plurality. At least from what I've come to understand these are the sort of "principles" I've seen at the core of this project (Note I'm mainly pulling from podcast episodes from 4 years ago, I'm sure much has changed).


What does being non-sectarian mean? Is calling oneself an anarchist enough? What about groups who no longer call themselves anarchist but contribute to anarchist thought, such as ITS or even F.C.? What about people who call themselves anarchists but don't fit in the post-left or left? How can one draw the line between "real" anarcho-fascists like anarcho-nationalists and anarchy adjacent groups like ITS that get fashjacketed?

Edit: episode 33 of the anews podcast touches on this.

What kinds of conversations does the collective want on Anews?

Do you want a highly cultivated "productive" conversations? Maybe you secretly like all the trolls? (I doubt it but still) Or maybe you'd prefer something in between? (Not taking ourselves too seriously while still having something interesting to say). Should all the conversations be about anarchism? Should they all be among anarchists? To what extent should old conversations be brought up anew? To what extent would you want to cultivate focus on unexplored or less explored topics?

I think these questions can help one understand how banning, censorship, account requirements and other methods of cultivating an online space can be useful. I think outside of the question of if banning is "anarchist" or not. Coming up first with the answer of whether or not these methods are useful to our goal (and what the goal is in the first place) is a better starting point.

Edit: I know some collective members (or who I assume are collective members) discuss the totw on the podcast but I would especially love to hear from collective members, their thoughts, prior to the podcast and to "invote a conversation". I forget the number of the episode but A! And who they were talking to to week (I want to say chisel but I may be wrong) Makes an interesting point about how the TOTW often was not thought about a lot by them prior to sitting down to record the podcast.

I look forward to reading your research paper on how to destroy anarchist communities, brow. When can we expect its publication?

The secret to destroying anarchist spaces is to do nothing, or at least thats been my experience. Anarchists are there own worse nightmare.

Edit: Also if you or anyone else cares: I'm not a "bro"

that was my point earlier about conflict avoidance: doesn't matter if you're the one starting it or responding to a transgression or jumping in to support someone when you probably should. or even just watching from the sidelines!

in my experience, most people will freeze or try to argue the conflict isn't necessary (making false equivocations) or they'll leave. i'm not even making this observation as a criticism because I don't need to, it's self evident how anarchy or anarchism would require people who aren't excessively conflict avoidant to be meaningful.

all that said, some people just aren't worth engaging with. worse, some of them compulsively try to bait people in to arguments because they absorb negative attention like a vampire. gotta learn to recognize the draculas! exit the vampire castle and stuff!

If one wants to "avoid the Draculas" that's understandable but i prefer to try and turn pointless comments like the one about "research papers" into something more interesting/"productive" to the convo. But everyone has their own line of what's worse engaging with and what's bullshit.

Good on you sister for focusing on interesting conversations and just remember you are not alone in whilst navigating the slanderous and snarky comments section of this wonderful anarch site ;)

But thanks anyways, hopefully some of what I've said here will lead to an interesting conversation. Do you have anything to add in terms of what you want to get out of anews as a space? Or just online anarchists spaces as a whole?

on the off chance that you're actually sincere, has it occurred to you that before you started paying attention to this stuff, quite a few of us may have already watched a lot of trolls come through here and use the particularly "edgelord" topics like taboos around child sexuality to stir shit up?

like, certain topics are basically just grenades, so you keep claiming you want to have discussion but it's difficult to discuss with someone who's lobbing explosives. i mean, I find people who can stay composed under those conditions very impressive.

but did that occur to you? child sexuality is a punch bowl full of poison koolaid and you're seemingly wondering why nobody wants to join you for a drink? nobody except sirziggles and the OTHER troll with the persecution complex.

I admit, I'm not super familiar with the history of Anews, my only knowledge of this topic being here was when the critical annotation of wolfis child Molestation vs Child Love was posted here, and a small discussion that happened when Ria posted a text here critiquing primal anarchists.

Honestly I don't really care if people use this topic to "stir shit up". I like stirring things up, i don't want things to stay the same, or worse get boring. If you see this topic as a grenade, in a way I think that only makes me more interested in weilding it. I'm very opposed to the idea of "normalization" but if this topic is so alien to people, so "dangerous" then that makes me want to bring it up even more. I want to challenge people to think about difficult topics and questions. Even if they get nothing out of it I love having these conversations since I continue to push the limits of what I know/ understand.

Leftists often undermine post-left theory with ideas of how it is dangerous, even Fascist. And I think we see a similar phenomenon happening not only with this topic, but in a whole slew of taboo topics: ITS, Indiscriminate attack, incest, infanticide etc.

I'm not wondering why no one wants to join the conversation about pedophilia. All I did was mention my stance, I don't give two shots if other people take interest in the topic, as I've mentioned, any one who is genuinely interested will learn far more from just consulting consulting literature then talking to me. But I'm also not going to shy away from mentioning my stance, just as I might mention my recent reading of the piece on infanticide from Black Seed.

So if you or others have a knee jerk reaction to this topic, or to infanticide or ITS or whatever, thats a bit more what I'm interested in talking about. (Though I'd also love to find people interested in talking about these topics). Why do you and others view these topics as grenades? How can I as someone who is sincerely interested in these topics bring them up? How can one tell the "trolls" from good faith discussions when any mention of the topics is immediately labeled insecure? At what point does being "controversial" as a means to push others in a "helpful" way become unhelpful?

I think it's funny you call Einzige a troll when they are one of the few people genuinely engaging with the topic and contributing to the conversation. What does "trolling" mean to you? If you had your way what limits would you put on the conversation? What is and isn't okay to talk about? How do you determine whether someone is sincere?

you're ... putting a lot of words in my mouth there?

I don't "see" it that way, it barely matters what I think. I'm just pointing out what happens often enough to reasonably predict outcomes, having watched various edgelords rise and fall over the years. Wolfi is one of the OG edgelords for contemporary @ literature imo.

It's a legitimate style of provocateur in my opinion. It's just that the style has strengths and weaknesses, like any.

You can pretend that you aren't lobbing grenades but it's weird because you begin your post by admitting it, then you walk it back a bit for some reason. Why not decide what it is you're trying to do first? If you don't want an angry mob to start swirling around you, then change styles. If you like being at the center of a drama vortex, then by all means, steady on! These are all just reruns of the simpsons to me. I can practically quote the dialogue as the characters are speaking lol

You're the one who used the language of grenades, I'm also extrapolating to the general trends I see that are related. If I've attributed things to you that aren't true apologies, but i am also speaking generally.

I think that's maybe where we differ, I don't see people like Wolfi as "edgelords". But we probably relate to these authors and topics different. I dont know how I'm walking it back, can you elaborate? I do think these topics are controversial, they are "grenades" but i don't think that's avbad thing.

My goal is to speak my mind, mentioning pedophilia was important to me to talk about this topic in a complete manner. I don't seek out drama, but I don't shy away from it. I would rather do/say what I believe in and upset people, or even alienate friends, then to compromise my values. I feel the same way about mentioning pedophilia as mentioning anti-racist or anti-identity stances both of which are controversial in their own ways.

The questions I asked were not rhetorical. Do you think there is any way to talk about these topics without a "drama vortex"? Are my only options to shut up or be labeled a troll?

I would love to hear your thoughts as someone "going through a rerun" either on the topic specifically or on how this conversation happens generally.

ok so, tomatoe tomahtoe then. The flow chart can look like: controversial topic, followed by VERY controversial topic, followed by a reasonable person could be suspicious of your motives because of how self evidentially controversial a topic is. But you claim sincerity, that's fine. Maybe you are?

Also you keep implying I'm trying to control you somehow when I'm just talking, same as you are. Perhaps you need to refine your analysis around how free speech works? people disagreeing with you or not wanting to engage isn't coercion.

and finally, as I said the other day, I don't find this topic interesting to discuss with anonymous strangers. I find it incredibly offputting in fact. of course you're entitled to your interests and I just thought I'd point out to you that this problem you're having is a pretty predictable outcome.

if you actually care, I develop relationships before I crack in to controversial topics. I mean ... compared to you anyway lol
but I do hope you find whatever clarity or discussion you're looking for out there somewhere, for what it's worth.

I'm sorry if it comes off that way but I mean to ask sincerely your thoughts on how these discussions can be had. Do you think that convos can only be had with those we have a relationship with?

And that's understandable I was just answering your quesyion of what my goal us, I don't mean to imply that I think you should engage in this conversation.

short answer: yeah

longer answer: the probability of a good or useful conversation increases when people already know and trust each other at least a little, especially on certain topics!

That's understandable. And honestly I think you are right for the most part. But despite that i still can't see myself relegating these, or any other conversation, whether more or less controversial to only "private conversation". I think ive touched on why already a little bit so I won't belabor on that but i do want to thank you for the convo/sharing your perspective.

It's understandable, though I do think there is a sort of process where people are written off as "trolls" due to this suspicion (irregardless of if it's true) where I think more could be done to engage with with topic in a way that is more "productive" but that is a slightly different conversation.

Some of these opinions had very sincere non-shock value beginnings. If we take it all the way back to Tom O' Carrol or Wolfi Landstreicher a bit later they were simply representing the highly marginal positions of sexual revolution discourse. Over time these figures are painted into a pathological corner where they have to aggressively posture to some degree. Consider maybe that your anti-pedo position is just a reflection of reactions to the more marginal expressions and a arguments of the sexual revolution.

I myself have always maintained an agnostic position where I avoid a qua opposition to pedophilia. I've always said if it earns its existence in some contextually specific psychoregion and shows itself to be programmable human software let it be. I am for all things north of clinical definition pedophilia(which many normies are not) because that's simply 99+ percent of human history. What is called 'hebephilia' for instance has more majority historical allowance behind then homosexuality. That doesn't mean that the former and latter should switch places, just consider that humans have their historically selective and specific disgusts that tend to code mores customs and morality as a whole and also tend to change over time.

I do think that one of the points of anarchism and anarchy is to help safeguard marginal individuals from various normative societal structures and biases that come with them however uncomfortable you may be with some of these marginalities. Try to stick up for the Socrates of the day.

Hey, what about me, I've engaged with you and conversed about many topics, ( Ayn Rand ) and you only mention the Einzige perp? Is your memory also nihilo-primitive ? ;)

My memory is not very good sorry but yes you fall into that category of people who I think engages in conversations.

Phew! Anyway, having a good memory is only a hindrance if living in the -Now-, so no apologies please, continue to forget.

repetition legitimizes

Another poster here. I dunno if its just me, but I find the thought and image of old 70year olds like lumps having frenzied sex more hilariously disturbing than seeing a couple of adolescents engaging in safe heavy petting :-p

flattered that you're picturing me naked but that shit ain't free! i feel your troll gaze objectifying my lumps!

Nice to see you taking up the banner for sex-workers I knew you had it (objects) in you.

that sex isn't a spectator sport. even when we're watching other people do it, if it's sex for US, then it's about how it feels to US, not about performing for watchers. if we're performing, than it's something else... but drawing hard lines bewteen these things doesn't work that well either.

tl/dr, i hope for you 20:36 that you're having great, unself-conscious sex when you're 70 plus.

20:36 here, I'm having my genitalia amputated when/if I reach 40 just to make my twilight years a more diverse intellectual experience minus all the erectile dysfunctiona drama that engrosses most of the western sexual-centric culture.

isn't voluntary association a core anarchist principle?

that means if you don't want to be around someone, you don't have to. either you leave or they leave. if a group of folks don't want to be around a particular individual, then it is their prerogative to get that fucker gone. hopefully there would be some meaningful conversation prior to that, so everyone understands the context of the situation. maybe that conversation results in the individual changing their behavior in order to remain with the others, maybe it results in the individual being forcefully removed. i don't think in terms of "banning", because that implies something rigid about the future.

"voluntary association: how does that work?" instead, right? what makes a group of people (in your example, 5:53) the decider? what if it's two groups who don't like each other? does the bigger group decide? how is that anarchist?
i have left groups that didn't want me, i have left groups i didn't want. i have participated in rejecting someone from physical space (ok, multiple individual someone's), i have left and have stayed with friends when there were groups at odds... but what are your thoughts about when one of those things is appropriate, and when not? what would you NOT do, and why?

yeah, sounds perfectly reasonable in theory. what about when one person without a mandate from "the group" unilaterally bans someone because he's a larger-than-life presence in that group? would that unmandated ban be an example of excess power and perhaps be cause for alarm?

but the idea that no one can do anything without getting group approval is just dangerous from a whole other (and also extremely common) direction, right?

chisel, it's not that one can't do anything without group approval (the mandate i mentioned earlier), but that an influential person can make *unilateral* decisions that will affect the group without consulting with the group. this is the opposite of group paralysis.

your point is obviously entirely relevant, but it does raise all these other questions, and group approval is one of them. what makes a unilateral decision? if the influential individual tells the group that they're going to act, without asking? what if they ask half the group and not the other half? what if they ask some people away from group space?
i'm not trying to muddy the waters... i'm not ONLY trying to muddy the waters, i'm trying to point out that the way you raised your point does tend towards group decision making. group decision making is fine as far as it goes, but usually doesn't take into account the energy/passion levels of individuals who may be better or worse at communicating that passion.
again, i've been the unilateral decision maker (both recognizing it and not recognizing it at the time), i've been the person who doesn't know how to move forward and so won't do anything til the group agrees, i've been the person with a vision who desperately tries (usually fails, dam that lack of charisma!) to get a group to go along with my vision. all of them have their place, all of them suck.

but to address again, your post more directly, recognize the problems with the accusation you're making, right?

I think the reframing of the topic as "freedom of association" is interesting but I also don't think I exactly agree. This may have to do with just how "anti-social" ones anti-social politics are. Since while I think many anarchists would agree that "communities" can associate or dissociate from individuals, personally I see freedom of association as purely between individuals. So at least in my mind I see a difference between one person choosing not to be around another irl as freedom of association but I think that same "relationship" between an individual and a "community" is not the same. I think part of the difference is that communities tend to be (perhaps they aren't intrinsically) spacial and so to me freedom of association makes sense in individuals choosing not to "engage" with eachother, but I think this spacial element, removing and barring people from spaces, whether that be physical space or cyber space at least for me doesn't fall in this conception, and I would say is a manifestatuon if property. Another element I think is how communities, at least in my understanding, exist as a thing outaide our selves (even if I don't believe in a self per se) /ideology which I think especially manifests in how this decision is made. (I think there is a difference between 5 people all choosing individually not to talk to someone and 5 people coming together to decide they will not talk to someone.

In many ways I think the idea of "organized space" and even the whole of "cyber space" makes the practicing of freedom of association extremely difficult if not impossible. Within the current framework for example I have experienced "egalitarian" communities who have had members who physically can't leave or "dissociate" with the community due to financial constraints, and these communitiesalso were less "available" to minorities for the same reason (perhaps others will attribute this to capitalism but I think this can be extendended beyond capitalism to sedentary life itself). I think in a less forceful way internet spaces represent sort of "monopolies on voice", sure you could go anywhere else, even start your own site, but there are few places where you'll do more then shout into the void. I think connecting this topic to the idea of "platforming" may be more apt. In this way i think the very act of having "organized spaces" especially now (though Im also opposed to having organized space as a "goal") is in a way almost counter to this goal of freedom of association.

With that said, including my stated opposition, I think space can be good "compromises" especially for certain intermediate goals. But I think the more interesting question I guess is how can one rectify a structure that is not conducive to freedom of association (coralling people into one space (even if that does have functional benefit) with freedom of association? And in this way I don't view banning really as an extension of freedom of association but instead as a corrective means to apply to this contradiction. (Like with all contradictions produced by civilized organization I think the more interesting convo lies in how to limit or get rid of the contradiction all together (this is one reason I'm interested in "nomadism" since I think it has a possibility to resolve/limit this conflict) though short term resolutions can be interesting. While i think banning is a functional solution I think there are solutions that can be experimented with that try and resolve the contradiction of spaces as opposed to bandaiding over the problem. I think attempting to organize spaces that are easy to come and go from, and that can be "occupied" by all kinds of people would be an interesting project. Beyond this broad stroke goal though I'm not too sure what this might look like in irl space but I think has more potential in cyber space.

another thread worth pulling is that part where you mentioned "banning" as relates to private property, which is how the legal system usually works in capitalism but fuck that obviously so how else would/could it work?

if you can't say "this building belongs to [blank] and they don't want you here so you gotta leave or you're trespassing." ... then what do you even do? is it just instant resort to might makes right? do you pretend you'll never need to infringe on anyone's spatial autonomy?

I don't think this contradiction can ever be solved except in the complete abandon of sedentary life, of "property". In the meantime however I think we are to at least some extent (even for the nomads) mediated by civ and thus property and need to understand better ways to deal with this contradiction. I think the idea of banning and this legalist notion of space/property is as of now the best answer I know about for people who want to organize space. It's the best functionally at least. But this is why I suggest experimentation. While I personally don't think one will ever have a space/property/community without this "authority" or system that limits spatial autonomy I think for anarchists who for one reason or another want/need to use space now "we" can try and mitigate this contradiction, leaning more and more towards spatial autonomy. (Though again I don't think spatial autonomy can exist while spaces exist).

Personally my partial solution is to try and be in structured spaces less. I am for the most part a nomad and so in many ways I am more free to move away from those I dislike since we can easily go our separate ways, not confined in a sedentary "space" one of us must then leave but of course this isn't perfect. While im not stuck living with people such as roommates or neighbors there are still methods by which I am barred from spaces such as the occupation of the earth by buildings, and the protection of property by police. In online spaces I don't think nomadism is effective since we don't come to the internet as a space to exist in but one to communicate in. In this way then the internet is actually hyper centralized. Personally I think individual tools like muting, blocking etc are effective where you can create a space where anyone can say anything, but individuals can choose what they want to see.

If I had to organize an irl space I think I would honestly just opt for banning with an extremely explicit set of rules since I think it is more helpful for people like myself (undesirable anarchists) to understand we aren't wanted in a space, or certain behavior isn't wanted in a space. Instead of pretending a space us open to anyone and only addressing things the organizers of the space don't like afterwards.

If i had to create a non-banning technique that may be more "anarchist". I can only really suggest trying to create a space where anyone can freely come and go. And learning to build skills of how to occupy the same space with people we might not like. For example a squat who's front door remains unlocked so anyone can come and go.

it's interesting how you tend to frame this stuff as if a bunch of people are deciding you're "undesirable" and targeting you.

what about from the other direction? we've all had to be assertive for valid reasons, sometimes several of us need to all be assertive together towards one person who's being domineering. kind of like chisel said, i've played all the different roles here.

especially complicated with anarchist folks because both sides (or more) always claim the other is trying to control them and you have to try and balance the scales or just say fuck it and pursue your own desires

I don't think it's about the bunch if people "targeting me" I think its about what a space is organized for. In the contexts I'm familiar with, primarily other online anarchist spaces, such as Raddle, r/anarchism, post-left Twitter, r/@ discord etc I, or the topics I talk about are undesirable in certain ways but for example while raddle has a rule against promoting child abuse, it doesn't have a rule against being a pedophile. So in this way I think it's more helpful to be explicit in what you don't want. And these are also examples of how i view myself as an undesirable anarchist, since most anarchist spaces want to exclude me. You could also use the example of anarcho capitalists as undesirable anarchists. Or left anarchists are sometimes undesirable in post-left spaces, and post left anarchists are almost always undesirable in leftist spaces. So I'm speaking relatively, not absolutely.

Personally I can only speak from the "not wanted in a space" perspective because even when I was an online moderator, or even organizing IRL I refused to take part in the pushing out of people from spaces.

I do think banning is a form of control but so is the organizing of space. I don't really know how I can be more explicit in my stance that I think Banning is functionally the best tool anarchists have for creating spaces for people of certain beliefs (or whatever you want to organize the space around) and that's always going to mean excluding undesirables (a space has to have an outside) whether its me, fascists, a domineering person or even just someone who doesnt have the same favorite color etc.

oh I see. I'm not really trying to get you to explain your position better tho?

more like i'm pointing at how and where your values will collide with other's and then the real fun starts and most people do a shitty job of navigating until they've had a bit of practice.

in fact I would say this is a habit that perhaps relates to online culture: where people just keep explaining themselves at each other, sort of talking past each other, instead of doing "real" conflict resolution. heheh and they're baffled as to why explaining themselves more and more isn't accomplishing anything or even makes it worse. hint: it's because of a fundamental conflict of values.

at which point, we can stop talking and start punching or somebody leaves the room or is thrown out or breaks down in to a mushy puddle of emotions or whatever the case may be. "real" conflict, after discussion completely fails.

I habe no clue what your position is, and you haven't (in any way I've understood) pointed out any way my position is in conflict with your position or anyone else's. Im explaining myself because your comments lead me to believe you don't understand what I'm saying, irregardless of if you agree or not. What even would the conflict of values be? I have no idea what you value at all.

yeah ... you're still explaining yourself and i'm not. perhaps that seems like the only option to you? it's not.

but clearly you've experienced some pushback so far, i'm not sure if it's fair in the sum total but this discussion in this space seems unlikely to help anyone... as I already mentioned. anyway onward, to more cringe! look at that train roll down that hill with no brakes! choo choo! Lac Megantic!

I don't know shit. you just want the trolling to stop, huh? never seen that problem here before

Yeah thats been my main interest in the convo, is the questions and commentary that's been made.

Yeah 05:53, and if the particular individual fucker doesn't fuck off, then we'll organise the formation of a security system to get them the fuck away from us, and if they keep coming back into our space, then we'll confine them to a cell until the fuckers learn to stay the fuck away!! *thumps table with fist, vein throbs on forehead, takes a gulp of moonshine*

^^^ or you could pretend that snarky observations designed to invoke a false sense of irony can make problems go away

Do Anarchists require this much effort to decide that raping children is not an anarchist quality?

no. some of us are patiently discussing it with a person who says they lived through it

They lived through raping children and you're having patient discussion about it? Curious.

No I was the child being raped

Rape is by definition against a person's consent. If a person wants it then it is not rape. Is this entire debate simply semantics?

you're just moving the definitional labor to that word, instead of rape.

in other words, can children consent? the rabid anti-pedophilia people tend to say they cannot. even though some of those same people i think say that sex between children is ok...

all of a_zed's questions at 11:49 apply, i think.

The idea of consent i think really tangles this topic in many others but yes put simply this is the begginingvof my stance. I would also point to ITS's stance on rape from against the world builders and adding to this the restorative justice critique of labeling people "perpetrators".

To summarize the connection, while violence (and even non-violence) taken in direct self defense or even with those close to us. Taking action based on ideas of "perpetrators" or "crime" in the name of unknown others, I think is ideological and recreates justice. Thus we should rely on those closer to us, and ourselves to know how to react to others around us.

School and circumcision are obvious examples that are given cultural cover. Culture and society itself is built on a aconsent basis. You could argue-like the anti-natalists-that physical life itself is an imposition. I don't go that far but it's a provocative argument made by people like David Benatar and Gary 'Inmendham' Moser(of youtube fame).

The consent cunts are disingenuous and inconsistent in their arguments. Some of these non consensual things leave a greater mark on some then a sexual encounter. Those who wanted a full foreskin and the full penal sexual sensations are not ever getting it baring technological solutions in the future. Sure some may affirm it, but some also affirm their adult sexual experience. The difference between a pedo experience and being circed and educated is the latter 2(especially the big E) is given positive enforcement. In spite of this there are still anti-circ orgs and there are still those who become anti-school in world view and these people are marked in long term ways that persist in spite of positive societal cultural enforcement.

I agree framing this as only a matter of consent I think is very reductive but I think it's the best starting point for those not actively thinking about this topic.

"consent cunts": children can't consent to being raped by adults.

"SirEinzige": what about my full penal sexual sensations?!!!

Why do you think children shouldn't be able to choose their sexual partners?

Why do you think children should be forcefully circumcised?

anon: children can't consent to being raped by adults.

A_Zed: child rape victims choose their rapists!

I chose who I had sex with as a kid.

Do you consider yourself a child rape victim?

I think my experiences as a child having sex with adults was positive. So I do not consider myself a rape victim from these relationships.

Legally I would have been considered a rape victim or abused I'm pretty sure.

Most people, also say that regardless of how I feel about the experiences, and irregardless of if it was legal or not, it was rape or abuse (even without hearing about the specifics of the relationships).

If you do not consider your past experience as being a victim of child rape then it is not relevant to this specific thread of child rape victims.

You are attempting to take an opposition stance on the topic of child rape victims by including your experience which you yourself have determined is not child rape.

No one here is considering what the state thinks or how it is "Legally." This is an anarchist website.

Well yeah if you don't equate all pedophilia with child rape then yeah my points pretty much been made. Though I would add that I think the topic of rape is more complex but I've already stated that elsewhere.

Yeah so stop being such an attention whore!

Attention whores are good actually. Your Christian anti attention whore morality is what is wrong with the whole world

Attention seeking behavior is frowned upon by every culture on the planet for a reason. Its usually a signal that someone is desperately insecure and seeking external validation to fulfill the hole in their soul where internal validation and a healthy self esteem should be.

Attention whores can be male or female and both variations are shit.

Wtf is with these weirdos in the comments trying to invert everything? (ie: “pedophilia is good!”, “being an attention seeking social media addict is great!”, etc.)

what is with the inquisition level of "you do wrong things to pleasure yourself i will kill you and all your kind"...

i know anyone can call themselves an anarchist, but wtf...

Man wtf why is this site suddenly being overrun with pedo apologists?

If you want to prosecute pedophiles it might be better to pick an ideology that doesn't want to abolish the police.

Uh yeah no fuck you. I understand and interpret anarchy in my own way.

Anti pedo & anti state.

Get fucked, cocksucker.

How do you plan to fight pedophilia without criminality? Or is saying "pedophilia bad" the extent of your anti-pedophilia?

It’s not “cops or pedos”. The cops are actually the ones who protect you from getting scalped by the relatives of the children you target for grooming and victimization.

In Rex Talionus, the law of the claw and the stateless state of nature: there will be no one to protect you.

That’s life, that’s chaos, that’s anarchy. It’s not some utopian NAP circle jerk where people just let you creep up on their kids.

The irony here is that I bet you yourself are a cop trying to lay bait bc as sick and pathetic most anarchists are, I still can’t bring myself to believe scum like you exist.

If you were paying attention you would know I was the kid getting fucked by adults. All I see is anarchists saying how they want to control my sexuality as a child in their "societies". If you want to kill people because they have sex with people you don't want them to, sorry but I just can't see how that's not cop logic.

Since when do cops kill people who have sex with people they don’t want them to? Like I said, tho nominally against you, the cops actually protect and enable you.

How do you plan to be a pedophile without fucking all the kids? Or is saying "pedophilia good" the extent of your pedophilia?

Tbh the extent of my pedophilia was fucking adults as a kid. And there's no way I could fuck EVERY kid.

Ah, see, similarly, the extent of my non-pedophilia is not fucking kids, there's no way i can stop pedophiles. So where's the inconsistency?

And by the way, cops rarely ever stop, mostly capture, the whole judicial system then prosecutes after the fact.

Yeah that's fair enough, the thing I'm railing against is people who would kill or institutionaluze pedos for no reason other then the label pedophile. And those who want to own children's sexuality (and own children).

brilliant. as if this anon pays absolutely no attention to their own language.

sounds about right...

when and why did cocksucker become a bad word, anon? how do you think that might reflect on your simplistic and knee jerk conversational gambits here?

I think it's interesting how many anti-queer comments there gave been (most deleted) since queer Liberation and child sexuality used to be intertwined "struggles"

Why did you say the same word twice? (a_zed 19:15) that the moral of you're whole shtick? A false dichotomy between cops (who can be pedos) and pedos (who can be cops)? A tale of how police is necessary to curtail the threat of people like you? To be against the institution of police does not mean you somehow become a pacifist, and even some pacifists can agree to use lethal force in self-defense.

No here is prosecuting you btw. Have you counted how many comments you have up in this thread so far?

I don't see how one can oppose sexual relationships between children and adults, purely based on the fact it is a relationship between a child and a adult without appealing to criminality. Having institutions to stop pedophilia whether that be vigilante justice (the cop in our heads) or "community defense" (anarcho-cops) to me seems like the only way to stop these relationships or to Punish those who do have these relationships. But if you you don't advocate for these institutional means of punishing it, then how do you actually oppose pedophilia?

But i agree I am not being prosecuted by anews, what I am talking about is the carceral logic of many commentators.

My comments get deleted all the time (I do sometimes act like an asshole tho ngl) but yeah damn, the collective apparently have no issue with anonymous strangers using their platform to give voice to “anarcho-pedophilia”.

That’s not a good look, collective...

hey now, a_zed said (many, many comments ago) that this site hadn't "yet" managed to get rid of them - where this assumption of ill will came from i'm not sure, probably a bad habit of pedos though you can maybe forgive the persecution complex given how few spaces that aren't filled with right-wing creeps or sad weirdos (or sadder weirdos) will let you talk about this stuff. they've said they enjoy instigating people and obviously love to talk about themselves - look at the time stamps between their posts, this is literally their lifeblood - which puts them almost in league with many of the sad weirdos who frequent this site, love talking about themselves and (surprise?) are totally about this person

anyway, i'm just looking forward to the next topic of the week not being another series of overlong essays on pedophilia and boring trolling in the comments. here's hoping!

if you actually want to have conversations with people about this, it probably makes sense to make it about one exteme topic at a time. asking people to accept rape as something that can be consentual seems like a needless complicaiton when you're asking them to ponder the complexities of consent.

on the other hand, there are plenty of assholes who just want ot spew their aggravation, so, carry on, i guess.

Yeah it's difficult, since all of these topics are interconnected and understanding ine helps understand others, but also they are all so hard to get someone to think about. Tbh in my experience even the most watered down version of my arguments make people pretty mad, so might as well go for the actual argument no?

I missed my brit milah due to unforeseen circumcisions ;)

If you equate pedophilia to rape. Which the state does through the legal concept of consent. Then I think it is fair to say I'm not against unconsensual things and thus rape. I am hesitant to say "children can consent" since I think this understanding dumbs down the entirety of my stance. But as a start to this conversation I will state my position as "children can consent". If you want me to delve deeper into the topic just let me know. Or feel free to ask questions.

Sex as Fascism is an interesting topic. Im pretty sure it's covered a bit in Black Seed #6!

You know, I was wondering why that issue that was already uploaded some time ago kept popping back up in the library's recent uploads, recently...

...and like the other texts you mention, I'm sure we came out of it with different interpretations, but oh well...

What was your interpretation?

What does opposing pedophilia from an anarchist perspective mean to you?

Does it mean just saying it's bad?
If that's the extent of your opposition do you actually oppose it?

Should anarchists do something to prevent pedophilia?
If so how?
Forced therapy?

How will anarchists define pedophilia?
Age of Consent laws?
Self identification?
Are the children engaging in sex with adults also pedophiles?
Are the children having sex with younger children pedophiles?

We issue “pedopassports” with QR code’s to track their movements in society. Without the “pedopass” they can’t access gyms, bars, etc. Eventually we make them take a certain “vaccine” and then wait a few years for them to deteriorate, and keel over dead.

Dunno where I caught the inspiration for this scheme.

I’m just spitballin y’all.

1. Only relevant if you have kid(s) that you care for in your everyday life, if not, it's a problem for others to deal with.
2. It means being vigilant of predators and getting rid of them if they insist on preying or after the fact.
3. See 1.
4. Being vigilant, self-defense.
5. No
6. No
7. An altercation in which a pre-preemptive show of force is made, making it clear in the intent of using it, could count as "banishment" in the sense that they got off with a warning and you better not see them around.
8. Sure
9. It's not a definitions game, strangers have no business getting too close to your child. Maybe they're not pedos, and are just people who honestly want to kidnap your kid to be good parents to them. Sadly, many cases of abuse happen within the family unit. Some have called for abolition of family unit. Ageism aids in not allowing kid's full self-defense against adults in custody of them. Kids must be empowered to be able to defend themselves against adults. You raise them to be vigilant and vicious, to run or stab at the drop of a hat. If you laugh, you haven't lived it. There's too much to this aspect. I'll leave it there.
10. Parenting is hard, they are their own person, they will make their own choices, eventually they will be off your hands so to speak. That happens very soon or very late in different cases.
11. I will not prescribe or speculate on what people with pedo urges should do with themselves other than leave kids alone.
12. No.
13. No.

Thanks for answering. Personally I completely disagree with your idea of raising children and being a parent. Cpuld you elaborate on why you think the family unit should not be abolished?

I'm confused by your 10th point. If children are their own person who can make their own decisions and protect themselves, how too must they be protected from strangers by their owner/parents.

I'm also curious if you could expand on your 11th point. Why should people who call themselves pedophiles stay away from children? Do you suggest anything to actually stop pedophiles from interacting with children or does this only extend to the children you own?

14- Amputate the enises of all males over the age of 21, there is overpopulation and to many dicks in the world. Only when the power of love replaces the love of power will the amputations cease!

Oh, so now you are calling dominatrixs pedos? Maybe let's redefine pedophilia to its original form and make this the benchmark.
Male with pubic hairs [ usually over 50 years of age ] who penetrates a person without pubic hairs [ usually under the age of 14 ]
Okaaaay, NOW we can restart this who conversation objectively and observing empirical physiogical facts without snowflake grenades and emo neo-liberal restrictions.

2 typos ---whole conversation--- and ---physiological---

This is the most nonsensical comment I've ever read.

Do you not think people grow public hair before the age of 50?

If a guy shaves his pubes after 50 can he be a pedo?

Why can't women be pedos? What if they have pubic?

you seem like kind of a shithead but "snowflake grenades" is pure gold

wow, what a dumpster fire of a thread! glorious ...

Thnx, aaaand I've got more!---- Pubic bazooka---- Sentimental brain vomit----Anal mucosa critique----Cum fly with me--- ;-D

Vigilante justice or community defense doesn’t = system cops.

This is a classic false equivocation. The state holds together a system designed to exploit and enslave. Enforcement of this system is done by police. Police also sometimes do other shit (like stopping a pedophile when he’s being as brazen about it as you, though, like I said, in the aggregate, they protect you from normal people ..) but those things are merely incidental to their main purpose of subjugating the poor and upholding the elites.

Individuals, families, communities that handle the pedophile question with direct action are doing something completely different: they are protecting their kith and kin, and not upholding a gangantuan exploitation machine.



Seriously fuck you, Epstein pedo scum.

And self-defense does not equal community self-defense nor vigilantism

If a parent of a kid kills a pedo that was harassing them, they not need go to kill a different pedo 2 doors down or two streets down.

When mass society disintegrates and the state can’t enforce the law anymore and people form up into tribes to survive: your tribe of pedos can fuck off waaay over there, and stay away from the rest of us now that there isn’t a state to prevent your scalping and/or upside-down naked crucifixion in public.

I agree killing someone who is harming you or a loved one is different then killing someone because of a label. Killing pedos because they are pedos is the thing I'm against.

foaming-at-the-mouth anon #571, is that whole cop-in-the-head thing.
rather than questioning (or just reading what they've already said), rather than pondering the lines between what is acceptable or not acceptable, and what makes something acceptbale or not, your rigidit, and the rigidity of many of the anons here, indicates a lack of curiosity, and a lack of self-reflection.... you know that experiment, what was it, the milgram one? where the students became terrible abusive prison guards to their own class mates?
how do you think that happens?

Is that what you meant? Apologies if I also got the name wrong

I think what you are describing is carceral logic. So we just disagree here about what opposing police means.

Killing you and your crew isn't carceral logic. Do you think people didn't kill themselves before someone imagined prisons? You think killing is a modern invention? Do you think momma bear uses carceral logic in defense of her cubs? Or a big gorilla? try coming near them.

I don't think momma bears kill people because they call themselves pedophiles.

sure, they don't ask questions. they are in many ways kinder and more forgiving, but also attack indiscriminately if you violate their personal space. many animals are territorial

I don't see what this has to do with the discriminate violence of humans killing people because they're labeled pedophiles.

Oh, you don't see the relation between two scenarios where it's almost 1:1 comparison?
Look, no one kills them because of their label, but in response to their actions.
Those who merely parade a label are celebrated with polite company, such as here. Have you noticed?

Yeah the only thing I'm opposed to is people killing people because they are pedophiles. But as long as your fine with kids being in relationships with adults if they want to then we agree.

It’s your proclivities.. That label is merely the indicator of those proclivities. The reason people might take issue with you living in their neighborhood going anywhere near their children is bc we dont trust you enough to not act upon those proclivities. You become a liability. Nobody is going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Nobody is going to just passively let you chat up and flirt and groom their kids. They are going to chase you out of their community along with all the other pedos in the area bc normal people with normal natural maternal/paternal instincts arent going to tolerate any latent threat to their offspring. It’s not the label, it’s the latent threat you pose. Now, you can cry about “muh carceral logic” all you want but honestly no one cares. If parents posse up and pro-actively deal with the threat you pose by running you out of town, good for them. Direct action gets the goods every time.

Now go cry some more you fucking pervy creep. If you ever so much as even looked at my kids and I knew what kind of person you are I would not hesitate to go into Momma Bear mode and feed you feet-first into a fucking woodchipper.

What then will you, or this group of parents do if a child wants a sexual relationship with an adult? It sounds to me like you and your "ideal society" is not to have kids who are autonomous and whom can make their own decisions and take their own actions when they are harmed, but instead have a class of parents who own children (like we do today). And who dictate what they can and can't do, what is andcisnt harmful to them.

“What then will you, or this group of parents do if a child wants a sexual relationship with an adult?”

Beat him/her. And chase the pedo (you) out of town.

Forgetting for a moment that what you’re describing is extremely marginal, so marginal that it’s not even worth talking about. It’s just some stupid “whataboutism” that only pervy little chomos like you salivate over. Yeah no, kids cannot consent.

Bitch idgaf if you think that makes me authoritarian.

Anarchy is a situation without a hegemonic state system.

This I like.

“Anarchism” tho is a laughable ideology that eventually leads to people like you and is itself a product of the system.

For anarchy to live, “anarchism” must die. When true anarchy emerges, it most certainly won’t go by the a-word nor will it have anything to do with freaks like you.

Seeing as I was a kid who fucked adults, I think this scenario matters. But as you've stated, if you don't care about being authoritarian, about controlling children, then you have no reason to want youth autonomy, so there's not much I can say to you.

Adults who fuck kids are the authoritarians. How is this controversial? Are you even an anarchist A_Zed or do you just like to stir shit in places where you are protected (not unlike being protected by the state)?

I was a KID who fucked adults. Is that also authoritarian? What sex am I allowed to have? How is you dictating to me what sex I can have not authoritarian?

To answer your question I'm hardly an anarchist since I hate most of them. But I have not separated myself from anarchism totally.

“Anarchism” tho is a laughable ideology that eventually leads to people like you and is itself a product of the system."

hot take lol! you're gonna blame like, kropotkin for this shit right now? srsly?! don't drag emma goldman in to this!

Emma was actually my first exposure to Youth Liberation in "Anarchism and Other Essays" so in a way it actually is her fault.

All you need to know about the current state of anarchy online is that this question has about 230 posts and the one about death has like 15.

Free yourselves from freeing your mind. Once you get beyond morals and ethics you still have to live with actual people. How do we do that? No, there are no rules, no hard and fast parameters for how to be human in this world. That still does not mean anything goes all the time. Anarchy is not accepting these rules from others, but finding what one is going to live with, and sticking to it. No father telling you it's wrong and so you knee-jerk do it anyway, but your own heartmind informing you about what is best.

You can decide for yourself that X is undesirable and that you don't want to be around people doing X. And maybe that includes banning. Circumstances are fluid and unpredictable, there are no one size fits all solutions, scenarios are situational. Think for yourself, including that x edgy act is okay because it pisses off the normies. Sheesh. Anarchists, grow the fuck up already.

Banning isn't something that individuals get to decide for themselves though. It is a process by which people "in charge" of a space dictate who is an isn't allowed. In the contexts of Anews I don't get to dictate for myself who to see and not see, instead a group of people I may or may not agree with. Dictate for me what I can and cannot see. This goes too for irl spaces with "organizers" or "community members".

Add new comment