kaberett | So here is the thing I'm struggling with about antifa at the moment

Entry tags:

So here is the thing I'm struggling with about antifa at the moment

It is all very well to say "if you are not with the [explicitly violent] antifascists, you're with the fascists" but what these explanations do not seem to include is actual detailed discussion of how or why I can operate on the assumption that these people won't decide that I'm the next target. "Because you're not a fascist!" Okay, right, no, try again. Try again. I have been told, by people still substantively respected and liked in my geographically local community, that being visibly autistic in public is oppressive. I want to know what the fuck system of rules you're working with that means I won't be deemed unacceptable and I won't be deemed an appropriate target.

"Try not being a fascist!"

Yeah, thanks, see above about "me being visibly disabled in public is oppressive". See every interaction I've ever had where my disabilities are an inconvenience to The Cause.

Try again.

I'm really not comfortable with the extent to which people seem to want to shout me down on this one, using that well-known abusive tactic of telling me that if I don't unquestioningly support them in spite of grave reservations rooted in, like, bare minimum historical literacy plus personal experience, I am all that is Bad and Evil.

I am struggling to articulate this any better because of the sheer visceral horror I'm experiencing at a lot of the rhetoric that's happening. But, like, if you want to engage with me on this -- and I am, very definitely, open to being talked to -- please consider starting from a point of "I see your concerns and they're valid, here's why I'm convinced", not "you're a bad person for having doubts".

If, however, you want to ask me how Very Dare I tone-police you on this, I request that you sit this one out.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Yeah and I'm mostly bitter, mind.

(I mean honestly: this facet of him breaks my heart. BREAKS it. And is in some ways one of the most discouraging things I ever found out, because of how hard it is to have read Night and then know that he just . . . didn't see what was going on right there. And I know how that works, and why, and even have deep compassion for the fact that I'm honestly sure his psyche was so primed in certain ways that it just couldn't GO there but it's also . . .it's incredibly sad, and one of the things that makes me go " . . . how the fuck can we even . . . figure this shit out, as a species.")

(But it just also means . . . okay, so here is another level of human interaction and stuff where we just have to . . . always be thinking. And a lesson about our failings and potential failings as humans and illustration of the challenges we have.)

(And sometimes after thinking these things I have to go to bed and pretend LA LA LA I JUST . . . HAVE STUFF TO DO LOOK A CLICKY GAME for a week or so because otherwise we are in dangerous thought territory. *sigh*)

Np - I realized that trying to type up and articulate thoughts like this on my phone was PROBABLY NOT A GOOD PLAN as it encourages editing and shortening which, while probably a relief to people who wish I'd shut up, is not necessarily good for actually saying what I mean. >.> So I came over to the computer.

Yeah. All of this and all of the comments. I bear witness.

Competing access needs are hard. They can make me feel alienated from some parts of the anti-ablist community because I keep seeing people stating the accommodations that help them specifically are obviously the the ones everyone should be concerned about.

I'm thinking of a post I read a while back that pretty much said that no one, ever, should buy or rent a place that wasn't wheelchair/scooter accessible. I commented that, to find such a thing in this town, we'd have to either spend three times as much or move to where there's no mass transit and quite likely both. I can't drive. I will never be able to drive. Mass transit is a fundamental access issue for me and was our primary criterion in house shopping. Not one of the houses we saw was wheelchair accessible or capable of being modified to be.

The points the blogger was making about things like ramps and having the bathroom and the kitchen on the same floor are vastly important, but they're not the only accessibility issues for all people with disabilities.

Oh god my conflicts with the Community let me show you them. And yes this is a huge one.

And yeah even supposedly specifically anti ablist activist circles struggle like fuck with this, so I mean.

1990. Is when the US got the fucking ADA. Which was a pittance, and gets trampled all the time, but the point is both of us, neither of us All That Old, were not only born but self-aware children. When the US passed federal legislation acknowledging disabled people HAVE some rights.

I can't speak to the history in Canada and the UK, I honestly haven't had reason to research the legal history in either, but. Yeah, it's very fair to say it's only in the last 20-30 years that we've seen effective anti-ablist work. It's honestly only the last 10 I've seen it getting any kind of serious traction.

I'm with you on this.

Yeah.

I find it really hard to share my thoughts about competing access needs in asynchronous one-to-many communications because it's so hard for me to check in with my audience and make sure I've adequately set context & constrained, e.g., the kinds of events or job roles I'm talking about, ensured we all understand I'm talking about "and" rather than "instead of", and so on. In synchronous conversation, or not-too-asynchronous conversation, I can check in with my conversators, and listen to course corrections in case I've made a bad assumption, mutually choose to expand or constrain the axis or job or event we're talking about, and do trust-building way better.

I am grateful for people who will share their views about competing access needs in asynchronous, one-to-many communication media, so I can read/listen and learn. I appreciate all the views I've read here.

There's also a certain amount of economic/class conflict in this because the reality is that most people buying a house at the bottom of the market are fighting to get good wiring and roofs that don't leak and an absence of asbestos and radon and... If you find something that's not going to fall down around you or cost you tens of thousands two years down the road, you end up compromising on a lot of things you want but can currently survive without.

Apart from structural soundness, the two things we wouldn't compromise on were no more than four blocks to a bus stop and having a bedroom large enough to hold our king sized bed (my husband's 6'2" and can't fit on a queen or double without his feet hanging off) with enough space to walk on three sides of it. That took us a full year of constant searching. The first two realtors we worked with thought we were too picky.

It's a very tough subject. My thoughts are mostly "do what you can with what you have and just flat realize that there will never, ever be a universally accessible space/plan/method, so you will always be adjusting, adapting and making the best of, and as best you can inform and empower people to make adjustments and choices to suit their needs". (And also that it's very, very important - as I realize in retrospect that often people use "do what you can with what you have" to mean "I'm not going to bother"; I don't, I use it to mean exactly what it says.)

Also that if people aren't genuinely approaching the whole thing with good faith then it's gonna get ugly real fast.

But I do feel that part of the unwillingness/failure of communities to try to integrate ability as an axis has to do with the fact that once you take it on you can't pretend this isn't a major issue, factor and consideration. And it complicates the whole landscape.

Edited 2017-08-30 02:16 (UTC)

I worry that universal accessibility may be a pipe dream because of competing needs. I know, for example, that some things that are widely requested in terms of website layout and color combinations are things that make sites very hard for me to use. That is, most people seem to prefer light type on a dark background, but I can't handle that because the letter start to jiggle. I don't have that problem with dark type on light background.

Obviously, the solution here is to let people customize every site they visit. I'm just using it as an example.

I think it would be good if the people managing any large event had someone that people with less commonly understood accessibility needs could talk to. Most people, even those who don't want to deal with the problem, will understand what the barrier is for someone in a wheelchair who's facing a stair or a too narrow door, but a lot of people will not understand the problem of a venue that doesn't allow outside food even for people with severe restrictions. 'Just leave the venue to eat' isn't helpful if it's winter and there's no other shelter nearby.

We're similar. We have the Charter and its applications rather than a specific Act but it's a similar time frame.

Just, you know. I do not want to ignore the work done by advocates in things like the Deaf community or the schools for the blind or what have you. But in terms of "disabled rights" as any kind of cohesive thing and especially when it comes to cognitive stuff and mental illness....yeah. We're genuinely more than fifty years younger, as it were, than any other group in this stuff.

There's a reason I still list 'reasonable accommodation' as an interest in my profile. It's one of the interests in plain type that isn't a link, so I guess no one else lists it.

To be frank, where "universal access" means "ONE design/setup/etc will be accessible to everyone!", it is a pipe dream. It flat out is.

To go with my own fields: it is not possible to create a "universally accessible" Storytime program. Even with the biggest budget, the best facilities, all the rest of it, one program cannot be universally accessible. Because you cannot accommodate (for example) in one program a child who's easily sensorily overloaded, highly anxious and experiences loud noises as painful, and a highly physical ADHD(hyperactive) child who needs strong sensory stimulus to maintain attention engagement.

You can't. These two children cannot be accommodated in the same program, because their needs are antithetical to each other.

However, you can make sure you have, in your facility, enough program variety that both of them can find a program to attend and benefit from. Both children can be able to access a storytime. (And you should!)

And that's a very simplistic/straightforward example, because that makes it clear; some cases are going to be a lot more difficult and complicated, but are also very subject to people going "well but you could just try HARDER!", so I tend to default to the starkest: no, there is no way to meet the needs of a child who desperately needs to be able to relax and make loud noises and be Boisterous in having fun, and a child who needs to be shielded from loud noises and people moving too fast around him in the same space. They are not compatible.

You can make sure that each child has their needs met and has access to a space to have equal access to what's available to each other? But you can't do it in the same room.

But the very first step to making sure that you're doing that program variety in your design is to own up to "there is no universal solution".

Which comes back to the antifa thing in that these people really want there to be one universal solution, usually, and are often constitutionally incapable of engaging with the reality that there isn't: that there is no One Way To Be Right. Which means they just end up sidelining and undercutting whoever doesn't fit with whatever model they've decided is Right.

Which is how you get to "autistic flapping is Oppressive!" and related bullshit.

Well, yes.

There is something utterly absurd, to me, in demanding that people prioritize accommodating the needs of people who don't live there in the choice of their own dwelling space.

This is bullshit.

Now, changing the GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CULTURE AND LAWS so that these things are considered at the design stage? This is a different conversation. So is talking about public spaces.

But with people living in the real world, as it is, the absolute reasonable first priority in terms of accommodation for your home is your needs - be they psychological, transportational, physical, economic, energy, stamina, ability to give a fuck, whatever.

Not some hypothetical person with a scooter. Not even your friend with a scooter: it's not their home, it's your home. Anyone who frames the world differently is merely asking me to trade the existing tyranny for one that benefits THEM more, personally, and screw that.

(I have strong feelings about this sort of thing, but then, some of my base philosophical positions actually ground hard in radical personal autonomy, which is surprising to some people.)

Hooooly shit, fuck that noise.

A slogan from the Bush era comes to mind: "Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side."

A+ comment.

I'm thinking of a post I read a while back that pretty much said that no one, ever, should buy or rent a place that wasn't wheelchair/scooter accessible.

*bitter lol* There's a rental affordability crisis in my entire country, and a very, very serious shortage of accessible rental housing, affordable or otherwise. At the moment if you rent then you take any apartment you can fucking get, even if it's a shithole and the commute is beyond ridiculous. And even before things got so bad (the last ten years or so) wheelchair users themselves already could not get suitable accommodation because there were not enough accessible homes to go around, and that's only gotten worse. I have a friend who nearly ended up homeless waiting on the crisis housing list.

Fuck Elodie (yes, I remember that post and who wrote it too.)

I think a lot of people are antifa because they want to punch people and feel good about it, not because they actually believe that hegemonic violence is bad.

It is all very well to say "if you are not with the [explicitly violent] antifascists, you're with the fascists" but what these explanations do not seem to include is actual detailed discussion of how or why I can operate on the assumption that these people won't decide that I'm the next target.

Yes this. And in addition to your disability concerns (which I share) there are of course Jewish concerns (as I know you know.) I haven't heard of an incident of antifa targeting Jewish people as Inherently Oppressive yet, but I'm sure I will. I'm sure it's already happening and I just haven't seen it cross my tweetfeed or dash yet.

And I read a tweet just last week in which some antifa was saying that if you criticise antifascist methodology at all then you're aligned with the nazis. That fucking terrifies me. Like, pants-shittingly terrified. As Emma Goldman probably thought was too basic to even state, if I can't criticise you I don't want to be part of your revolution.

It's really interesting to me how Antifa who were always a small and active part of anti-racist protests has suddenly come to mean everyone, everywhere, who opposes fascism, that than those who are prepared to get into physical altercations with their opponents.

I'm antifascist, but I wouldn't go so far as to call myself Antifa because I don't get up at the front of protests, preferring to be a nice white lady in the middle, on the occasions when work and health allow me to attend protests in the first place. But what I've seen over the years is there's a big difference between whose who stand up to violence from the right or fro the police, and those who are in it for the violence. I had major problems with a local Trot group in the 90s because they liked to come to all the protests, even those that were meant to be peaceful, and find someone to punch, often a public servant who worked for department whose actions were being protested against. It's probable that my scorn at trots in general is due to this particular local group. I have no doubt that some of these people are now self-described Antifa.

As some said on twitter, "Antifa" is the new "SJW" - a catchphrase for the right to use, but you see to be more concerned with how it's been taken up by a rallying cry by those on the left who have a "you're either for us or against us" and I do think this is a becoming an issue that needs to be addressed. Because as one contingent of the many who are all all resisting fascism and racism in various ways, I think Antifa tactics are useful. But they are not the only tactics, and not the only way, and I don't want those voices to drown out others.

Yeah, this is a really good example of why I don't do lefty direct action: if you're Jewish, you have to constantly perform exactly, exactly the right opinions about Palestine, because otherwise you're... a fascist. And at least some people defining themselves as anti-fascist have decided that violence against people they deem to be fascists is acceptable. I'm a target for that sort of righteous violence, though likely to a lesser extent than I'm a target for violence by actual Jew-hating fascists. And I don't have the same ableism to contend with that kaberett does. But there are antifascist groups I'm actually scared of, even if we have a common enemy.

Mind, I completely agree with you that Wiesel was a flawed human being, and I get that you personally would not have advocated violence against him. But this isn't theoretical for me; my brother's friend was murdered when his protesting-against-Bush comrades discovered he was Jewish. It is probable that that anti-colonialist, anti-war, anti all the bad things in the world group was infiltrated, but they were susceptible to being infiltrated because they were completely ready to believe that anyone ethnically Jewish was 'just as bad' as actual Nazis because Israel is an oppressive militaristic state.

I'm less unsafe than kab in that it's not physically impossible for me to march with people chanting 'Jews out!' or carrying banners proclaiming ✡ = 卐. But you might understand why I'm reluctant to join in such a protest. And my reluctance can and will be used as evidence that I'm Bad and Evil and don't really oppose fascism. I mean, if Wiesel is suspect because he criticized Obama about Israel, I certainly don't stand a chance.

Yeah, I've been living in London since 2013 and I am only just about to move into accommodation that has proper level access in which I can (probably!) reliably breathe in a way that feels safe and secure for my mental health. And that's out in zone 5. So.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 4

So here is the thing I'm struggling with about antifa at the moment

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

they all want to lead the fight, and they know what they know alright

no subject

CN: antisemitic violence

no subject