marjaerwin: (Default)
When police fire tear gas and concussion grenades at protesters, that doesn’t mean the protesters were or are committing violence. It means the police are committing violence.

I wasn’t able to participate in today’s protests, due to my disabilities, but while peacefully protesting years ago, police attacked the group I was with, and someone knocked me to the ground, and police repeatedly sprayed pain into my eyes and mouth. Judging by photos of the beating, and bruises afterwards, they also beat me with an improvised club. I have severe asthma, and I could have died if it had gone down my throat instead of my esophagus. I don’t have epilepsy, but I had some kind of seizure due to the pain.

Blaming protesters is victim-blaming. Bullying survivors to try to figure out what we must have done to deserve the violence can be triggering for some of us with ptsd from this violence. It’s not right, factually or morally.
marjaerwin: (Default)
1. It can allow the victim-blamers to pretend there was no injustice, and to pretend there is natural justice.

2. It can enable the victim-blamers to trigger victims who speak out, by forcing us to describe our experiences, again, and again in more detail, to show we weren’t doing anything to provoke our attackers.

3. It can enable the victim-blamers to silence victims who don’t want to be triggered again.
marjaerwin: (Default)
It can be really frakking triggering, when we have survived violence, and we talk about the violence, and we get told we must have done something to deserve the violence.

It isn't much better, when we have survived violence, and we have another story about other violence, and we get told that the other victim must have done something to deserve the violence.

It enables people to dismiss any given victim of an injustice, and thereby to dismiss the very existence of an injustice.

It means that people find ways to blame Eric Garner for being choked to death and Tamir Rice for being shot to death by police who don't seem to have given him a chance.

It enables violence and, depending on who is doing the victim-blaming and what power they have, often threatens violence.
marjaerwin: (Default)
It's hard. Some beatings, some stuff I'd rather not talk about, a death in the family, and frequent reminders that I don't control my own life have sucked all the joy out of my own life.

P.S. I've had good days and bad in the past three weeks. I'm triggered now, but on the whole I'm doing better these days than I was then. I've got a better idea too, of what keeps bringing me back to the beatings, and the other stuff I've survived, and the fear. Maybe I can work through it after all. Maybe it will start getting better instead of worse.
marjaerwin: (Default)
@#$%

I just got banned from an alternate history board for pointing out that the Green Scare targeted non-violent activists and classified some groups' non-violent activism as terrorism. And that it turns a blind eye to racist hate groups murders. Apparently, they think criticizing the United States government means supporting terror.

Never mind that opposing terror, let alone opposing *all* violence, means opposing *any* empire, indeed *any* state.

Imperial statists accusing pacifist anarchists of supporting terror are worse than hypocrites.

Another user got banned for pointing out that the United States government used its political support after the 9/11 attacks to try to take control of oil-producing areas, namely Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack and had no 'weapons of mass destruction.'

All this is historical fact.

All this has to be swept into the memory hole.

The problem isn't one or another moderation mistake. The problem is that systemic doublethink has taken over the public discourse. Opposing violence becomes 'supporting terror.' Supporting violence is taken for granted, as long as it's the people at the top of the pyramid using violence against people at the base of the pyramid. Nonviolence, equality, love, these things are made meaningless.
marjaerwin: (Default)
(Luckily, they aren't rounding up dissident bloggers yet.)

I am still wondering how they have normalized the torture and surveillance states. However, I'd like to mention a number of contributing problems:

1. It looks like many of the people in the political/corporate establishment are interested in expanding its own power. In many cases, they may wish to expand their power for benevolent reasons; the effect is just as maleficent.

2. It looks like most of the people in the political/corporate establishment deal with other members of the establishment more often than they deal with outsiders. If they hear the same ideas, attitudes, etc. from each other, they reinforce each other.

3. Most of the people in any privileged group believe their ideas, and only their ideas, are serious. They are likely to believe outsiders' ideas are unserious, simply because they are outsiders' ideas, unless the outsiders agree with the establishment.

3-Note. We don't need tapes of cabinet meetings to discover this. We can see similar phenomena in everyday life. Men tend, unconsciously, to give more weight to each others' voices than to womyn's voices. Even in activist meetings which try to achieve gender equality, men speak more often than womyn, and men's ideas are often immediately discussed, while womyn's ideas are often deferred unless/until a man seconds the idea. We can reasonably assume that this is one of the causes of the serious/unserious dynamic Glenn Greenwald has written about.

4. The beneficiaries of authoritarianism are better organized for lobbying than the targets of authoritarianism will ever be. These would include the prison-torture-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, the information control industry, and myriad groups which are already involved in crimes against humanity and are hoping for secrecy and legal impunity.

5. The rapid expansion of authoritarianism, the increasingly frequent wars, etc. have drained activists; the use of violence, trumped-up charges, agents provocateurs, the use of torture against alleged whistleblower Brad Manning, and so on have intimidated many of us.

6. America has an established culture of victim-blaming - the dark side of the myth of meritocracy.

7. American schools, media, etc. have played up the ideas of the enemy within - which the Wilson regime used to justify its repression - and of the stab in the back. They most often apply the myth to the Vietnam War, claiming that the United States military was undefeated, and could have won the war, but that the anti-war movement had somehow tied their hands.

7-Note. We can see these at work here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/29/guantanamo_bay_obama_bush_karen_greenberg_peter_king_bradley_manning/index.html

Note: Edited because I for one don't know what they are thinking; 1 and 2 are based on their behavior and 3 is based on my knowledge of how other kinds of privilege can affect group dynamics and/or reinforce groupthink.
marjaerwin: (Default)
For our first entry, I'll take all statements of the form:

"If you [act in some harmless but insufficiently subordinate manner], then don't complain when faced with the consequences [up to and including beatings, arrest, torture, and rape]."

Look, do we even have to explain why kapoism and other evils are bad? *sigh*

Profile

marjaerwin: (Default)
marjaerwin

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 17 1819
20212223242526
27 28 293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 02:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios