marjaerwin

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.

I hate it when someone who doesn't face neo-Nazi violence dismisses neo-Nazi violence, claims it doesn't exist, or claims it isn't important, or claims that the survivors are as bad as the thugs who beat us.

I am forced to endure the violence all over again. I am denied the ability to speak out about this violence and condemn this violence and condemn the wilful blindness that allows this violence, because as triggered survivors, and anti-fascists, and people who may well face further neo-Nazi violence, we cannot achieve the privileged 'objectivity' and 'seeing things as they are' of those who need never fear neo-Nazi violence.

When those who do not face violence use their 'objectivity' to silence those who do face violence, it is enabling violence, and victim-blaming, and silencing, and epistemic violence, and triggering all in one.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/03/greenpeace-activists-arctic-sunrise?commentpage=2

I’m stunned, and a bit triggered, by how many people here are complaining about so-called self-righteousness, and celebrating Russian prisons, and their speculations about what will happen to these activists in those prisons. I get the impression from the latter that they enjoy other people’s suffering, and from the former that they resent anyone who doesn’t enjoy the same things.

So now I'm seeing condemnations of Snowden and of whistleblowing based on condemnations of conscience. It's unthinkable, but it's right here: http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/24891461

Would we be human without our consciences?

It's what drives us to try to do the right thing and try to understand what is the right thing. One cannot oppose moral reasoning to conscience, because moral reasoning is rooted in conscience. It's one of the things that makes moral reasoning different from moralization and sophistry.

Cross-posted from my tumblr: http://ananiujitha.tumblr.com/post/42337453604/if-you-think-conscription-is-a-positive-model-for-a-new

I don’t care how you see yourself, I want nothing to do with you or your movements. I know the economic draft is a great injustice, but to replace it with an administrative draft, and to extend this administrative draft into every aspect of the economy is to multiply the injustices, and to kill people like me. Oh, sure, you might have exemptions for the time being, but if I’m exempt, that doesn’t mean I’m going to let someone else get drafted and, if they are at all neurodivergent, get hazed, tortured, and quite possibly killed. My grandfather was drafted during the war. By the time he got back he had to smoke, I think, several packs a day to cope with his ptsd.

I want a world where everyone is female and no one has to face violence for being female.

I want a world where everyone has access to life's necessities, and no one has to sell herself to bosses and administrators for life's necessities.

I want a world where no one has to fear armed enforcers of sexism, racism, and class domination.

I want peace and freedom.

I want love and solidarity.

I want to heal from trauma, and from injuries, and work for these things.

Since some of my friends have asked -

1. I know that non-participation isn’t a solution, but I consider participation in American electoral politics a form of participation in violence. Historically, many electoral assemblies have been army assemblies. I want to work towards freedom, not a comitia centuriata, nor a tribal assembly manipulated by reiks and their household soldiers.

2. I don’t have all the necessary documentation. I can’t get everything sorted out under state law.

3. Otherwise I might consider holding my nose and defensively writing in Jill Stein, or perhaps protest writing in Breanna Manning. I think Stein’s prejudiced against autistic folks, but not as badly as Roseanne Barr is prejudiced against trans folks. Barack Obama has a wretched record on civil rights, has continued the wars, has targeted whistleblowers, and so on.

4. I think the voting system is irrepairably corrupt and disenfranchises too many people. Al Gore betrayed his voters and his country by taking a fall twelve years ago, and his actions allowed the problems to continue to get worse. George Bush and the Supreme Court also betrayed this country. And yet somehow people blame Ralph Nader.

So on the Guardian, another commenter has suggested that fascism acquired its rationales for political violence from anarchism, here and in later posts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/04/wagner-family-bayreuth-festival?commentpage=2#comment-17505091

The extremes of fascist political violence included wars, police states, and genocide. How many wars have anarchists started? None. How many police states have anarchists run? None. How many genocides have anarchists conducted? None.

The acceptance of wars, police states, violence against the poor, and violence against minorities is hardly unique to fascism. It's the systematic, deliberate, industrialized genocide which is unique to fascism. But the closest parallels are with other right-wing political ideologies, such as other forms of nationalism and other forms of racism.

But wars, and violence against the poor, and violence against minorities are too often taken for granted, and accepted, if not embraced, by almost every non-anarchist political ideology. They aren't seen as political violence. As long as it's the powerful killing the powerless, it's invisible, unless it reaches the extremes of war and genocide. Only when it's the powerless hurting the powerful is it visible as violence.

If someone dies from preventable disease, it's not considered violence. If policies force her into unemployment and/or poverty, it's not considered violence. If policies price medical care out of her reach, it's not considered violence.

If someone is killed crossing the street, it's not considered violence. If road maintenance ignores pedestrian safety it's not considered violence.

If someone is bullied to death, it's only recently recognized as violence.

If a head of state is assassinated, it's immediately recognized as violence, and usually blamed on anarchists. I've read other essays claiming that the assassinations of Alexander Romanov, William McKinley, and Franz Ferdinand were by anarchists, but the first was by a Narodnik, the second is disputed, and the third was by a nationalist. May as well mention the assassination of Frank Steunenburg, by union-busters who tried to frame union organizers who were sympathetic to anarchism.

Of course, it's often impossible to conceal the violence of war and genocide, except against the smallest minorities.

Some would define justice as procedure.

"Piso mounted the tribunal in a rage, and ordered the three soldiers to be executed. He ordered the death of the man who was to have been executed, because the sentence had already been passed; he also ordered the death of the centurion who was in charge of the original execution, for failing to perform his duty; and finally, he ordered the death of the man who had been supposed to have been murdered, because he had been the cause of death of two innocent men." [Of course, it was the judge and the executioner who were the cause of the deaths of three innocent men.]

(from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia_ruat_caelum )

Some would define justice as punishment.

"The whole basis of Justice is that the person gets punishments. It isn't the rehabilitation system, or the prevent crime systems. It's a system to hand out a punishment to somebody for their action.

People who don't believe in punishment, don't believe in justice."

(from the Guardian, in a flamewar thread, http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15191574 )

If that is justice, then let us oppose justice! But it is not justice. It is injustice condemning its critics.

Some believe that justice is inherent in the world. At best this idea leads to quietism. Sometimes this idea reinforces the just-world fallacy and leads to victim-blaming. At worst people combine victim-blaming and vindictiveness: being a victim means being guilty, being guilty means deserving punishment, therefore a victim must be further punished, and further, and further...

****

What is justice? I would define it as righting wrongs.

Helping the victims. Helping people heal. Helping people avoid having to face the same wrongs again. And one of the wrongs is that our institutions are based on domination, our culture is based on silencing, and many people's instinct for justice and compassion has been turned into another tool for domination, and with it, for injustice and brutality.

... I am at a loss for words. I have already been beaten by the militarists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15023947

I don't know how many more planes need to be slammed into buildings for the reality sink into a pacifist's head. American-born extremist are treasonous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15024115

I agree with you that humans live and die. Unfortunately the American Civil Liberty Union wants to upset this balance by being in favor of traitors living.

I wonder how many millions more people will die in how many destructive conflicts before the racist-nationalists realize they are destroying humanity.

He's decided that as a pacifist, I must be an extremist, and as an American-born pacifist, I must be some sort of blood traitor. Because I reject militarist values of blood, land, oaths, orders, and war, and he accepts these values, he declares that I am a traitor, and I must die.

He's not threatening me in person, of course, just the millions of other human beings who wish to live human lives.