And as a follow-up

[kaberett]

So as best I can tell, tim has just unfriended me everywhere on the entire Internet because -- I can only assume -- of the post I made yesterday, which disagrees pretty strenuously with his latest post about this twitter thread. I think it forms part of a disturbing pattern of behaviour on his part: I've tried (repeatedly!) expressing concern about his ableism in comments on his posts (as have others), and I've seen similar concerns expressed about his approaches to racism and other areas of oppression. He's point-blank refused to engage, as is of course his absolute right, but I am increasingly scared by how unwilling he seems to be to admit to mistakes or nuance, given ~his position in the feminist community~ and all that shit.

So here's the comment I left on that latest post, which is screened and which I imagine is likely to remain so, because actually I think the content is important.

(I hate that this is, in essence, a "call-out" post? But tim has been very clear that he thinks call-out culture is a good thing, and I have tried -- repeatedly -- to talk to him about this in his space. It has gone nowhere. So: now I'm talking about it in mine. Because I'm scared, and because I think engaging critically with his position statements actually matters, and he seems to be very keen to prevent that. Here we are.)

If you don’t want to get punched by an antifascist, it’s simple: don’t go to white supremacist rallies and don’t own white power symbols

This is fine, as far as it goes.

It’s perfectly reasonable to expect a violent response to the expression of hate speech because hate speech is itself violence

This is not. The sleight-of-word from clearly-defined "white supremacy" to vaguely defined "hate speech" is terrifying, especially in the absence of an actual clear definition, especially when endorsed by people who absolutely and categorically refuse (as is their right!) to engage with ever having it pointed out to them that they done fucked up. Personally, I'm much more in favour of the UK's attitudes to hate speech than the US' -- but you don't get to go from the one to the other while saying shit like "Apologies in advance [for getting punched "accidentally"]. Get an ice pack and reflect on what you just sacrificed for freedom."

[...] You’re either with the antifascists, or you’re with the fascists. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar, a coward, or a fascist - or possibly all three

This is negging, and it's very, very clearly an abusive tactic deliberately targetting expressions of (valid!) concern and dissent. It should not be okay, and it should not be acceptable. And in the context of your history of shit like this:

"By not responding, I'm not saying that your points aren't important or that your feelings about what I said aren't valid; I just don't wish to have this conversation with you at this particular moment."

... and others I've seen, where people call you in, compassionately, on your ableism and your racism and you utterly refuse to engage... yeah, I don't think anyone who's unwilling to admit to being wrong is someone whose absolute moral authority I'm willing to bow to unquestioningly. What the fuck.

I know you can understand what you're doing. I am scared of how determined you are to display your Moral Righteousness to the utter exclusion of ever engaging with (or even admitting!) your mistakes and fuck-ups.

Holding everybody else in the world to a higher standard than you do yourself is not a good look.

Comments

[kaberett]

Because here's a thing: as I've said in comments on the previous, I am not opposed to antifascist violence.

I am also entirely capable of performing the necessary analysis to realise that rhetoric like that linked is actively making me and people like me more unsafe via at least two different routes, and I am fucking sick of people prioritising moral purity and sneering condescension over the pragmatics of kindness and making the world less horrifying.

[ewt]

Oof.

I am disappointed in tim, here.

[elf]

You’re either with the antifascists, or you’re with the fascists. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar, a coward, or a fascist - or possibly all three

There's a sense in which that is true - fascism is not a "meh, a little is maybe okay but I wouldn't want too much" kind of topic. But there's a big difference between "you are either for or against people having basic civil rights" and "if you are against the current activisms lumped under 'antifascism,' then you are supporting facism" which seems to be what he's saying.

hate speech is itself violence

A topic worth discussing, but that's not what he's doing. He's offering that as a starting definition, and ignoring that, even in the countries where "hate speech" is illegal, it's not treated the same as physical violence.

And yeah, he's making a big jump between "nazi-esque terrorist activism" and "all hate speech," which is a lot more nebulous.

[recessional]

The desire to go "wait who is this person with ~position in feminist community~ now?" is probably pretty petty, but that happens sometimes.

I mean, I think you are entirely fair here. I also think that the pattern you describe here is 100% in keeping with things I see happening repeatedly in so-called activist communities when a certain amount of momentum gets reached, and a certain type of personality gets on top of that momentum. They're the same personality regardless of the movement, and this is their typical MO.

And yeah sorry "hate speech" has an actual legal meaning in my country and I am behind that 100% because fucked if some asshole off the internet just gets to decide what it is, okay. Authoritarian oppression can arise from any part of the political spectrum thanks much I actually know people who grew up under Communist authoritarian regimes, bite me.

I'm not signing on for your tyranny either, dude. ("your" being not kab, being the kind of "activist" under discussion here).

[boxofdelights]

He does that flip-flop that justifies being afraid of him more than once in that one post: first, the reassurance, that "There is literally only one reason an antifascist would be violent towards you: you are a fascist" and second the threat, that if you oppose or criticize or even question anything the antifascists do, you are a fascist.

Unless he has the attention span of the proverbial goldfish, he knows what those two assertions add up to: If you do not support me unquestioningly, you deserve a punch in the face.

[liv]

Yes, this. I have been thinking for a while that if tim were local, I'd probably want to avoid any close contact. Because like a lot of us I feel unsafe around men who repeatedly, publicly fantasize about violence. I still don't think it's that likely that Tim actually wants to walk up to me and punch me, but not that likely isn't a high standard of personal safety. Declaring that anybody who doesn't wholeheartedly support his intentions to use violence for his political ends is a fascist, when he's already established that he wishes to punch fascists, well.

[flippac]

I had more to write another time, because if I'm going to respond to most of this I have some careful stating-of-position to do.

But I was linked to this post just now and either someone's had a really unfortunate timing accident or it's a serious crock of shit.

If you're still concern-trolling about "violence" at this point, I would ask you: are you against all self-defense, or only self-defense by anti-fascists?

Funnily enough, kab knows what I'm capable of and the situations in which I am willing to use it. That I can reasonably be described as an anti-fascist who is willing to use violence in the defense of self and others. Tim ought to remember it too. Kab and I get on just fine.

Because the thing about this is really damn simple:

Kab ain't concern-trolling. There are legitimate concerns, and if we accept that not all violence is physical then there are even more of them. And Tim has been running away from them for a long time. Calls me smart, and that's about when I stop being allowed a point of view.

Because I reckon when it comes to conflict, he dehumanises anyone he considers "smart". Let's just say I've advised him in the past not to do a dangerous thing and why, been rhetorically asked if he cared about the people affected anyway and it turned out too late that he did and should have. But hearing me out on conflict? Was always too much to ask.

[staranise]

Welp, I tried.

[kaberett]

... that you certainly did. <3

[alatefeline]

*hugs offered*

[vass]

I'm sorry that's how he responded. That's shitty.

[ex_we935]

I worry that attitudes like his will lead to even more authoritarianism, this time on the left. I've encountered Twitter leftists who seem to think that you can fight authoritarian Neo-Nazis and other white supremacists with more authoritarianism.

~K.

[ysobel]

...ugh.

(and his "why would antifa be dangerous to people with disabilities" is disingenuous when paired with "if you fail to assist us, or criticize anything we do, you are The Enemy" attitude.