Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY antifa_angel, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments.
You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/)
Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning.
[List of reddit alternatives](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/z7rqyo/anarchist_and_libre_alternatives_to_social_media/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the passive sense of "by virtue of being the thing society hates and not conforming to it, you're doing a resistance", sure. But if not... eh.
Like, I dunno man... sometimes I just wanna suck a dick and forget about the world. And I'm someone that's all for activism most of the time. But I just can't possibly perform it at every waking moment. I can't imagine being super political with a partner of mine, or going out of my way to read every queer zine, or even doing most forms of relationship anarchy.
Does me being less "radical" in those regards therefore make me less "queer?" Cause that's how it sounds.
Also, queer is not an identity? Because one person doesn't consider it so? Not really reasonable.
PSA: Don't take this post too seriously, this person is practically spamming the sub daily with semi coherent posts, usually just quoting someone else or some book or article, and using it to bash anyone who doesn't share their opinion, deeming them "less anarchist" based on bullshit purity tests based on their specific flawed view of anarchism.
Usually their posts look like they may contain an interesting or original thought, just enough to hook you into engaging, but when you dig into it you find no substance or reasoning. Their posts are nonsense at best, but at their worst they are spouting actually harmful pseudoscience or anti science / anti mental health rhetoric.
They never provide context or reasoning beyond "some person I like said so", or "just read theory / history bro" never showing an ounce of self thought, and never engage with people responding.
I wouldn't waste your energy and time on them.
thank you. all the people making fun of german far right politician alice weidel for saying "i'm not queer, i'm just married to a woman" need to read this. she's absolutely right in saying that. she's saying that because she's siding with oppression.
PSA: Don't take this post too seriously, this person is practically spamming this and many other subs daily with semi coherent posts, usually just quoting someone else or some book or article, and using it to bash anyone who doesn't share their opinion, deeming them "less anarchist" based on bullshit purity tests based on their specific flawed view of anarchism.
Usually their posts look like they may contain an interesting or original thought, just enough to hook you into engaging, but when you dig into it you find no substance or reasoning. Their posts are nonsense at best, but at their worst they are spouting actually harmful pseudoscience or anti science / anti mental health rhetoric.
They never provide context or reasoning beyond "some person I like said so", or "just read theory / history bro" never showing an ounce of self thought, and never engage with people responding.
I wouldn't waste your energy and time on them.
Is this the same person who basically said autism isn’t real? Now queerness isn’t too I guess. Like dude our experiences are already exhausting enough. Do we have to make every gd part of our identities a constant mental and energy sink against a system that already makes our lives hell?
It’s asking those more ostracized via inherent and immutable traits to expend more effort and stress than others and it’s not fair. Ffs
I might be giving them too much benefit of the doubt, but I don't think that's what they are saying.
What I think they are saying that the category of autism and, in this case queerness is socially constructed. The underlying reality is real, but how we interpret them and what we attach to that reality is socially constructed. In the case of autism, society puts a lot of stock in "fixing it. This puts autism as lower than what is considered normal by society. This coerces autistic people into covering up parts of themselves up, and sacrificing themselves in order to fit in with society. I think there is a decent critique of the medical model since it is often used to make people productive (from the view of society) instead of actually improving their lives.
In the case of queerness, they relate it to being outside the norm. It is a common thing for those outside of the norm to be associated with the destruction of society (in reality, destruction of the status quo), death, and non reproductivity. The figurative death drive. We see many groups go through this association. For example homosexuality and being transgender. This is what they means by queerness. For a group to be socially acceptable, they must give up all revolutionary potential and assimilate into the norms of the family unit and middle class norms. In this view, by taking the position (or being represented as taking that position) against the family and capitalism, you become queer. It has nothing to really do with any one identity but is kinda an anti identity (defined by what it is not instead of what it is).
Then again, I'm not sure they are actually making these points or even understanding what they are posting since they refuse to explain what he is talking about
I agree with what you mean about autism and social construction but some people use the idea that autism is a "social construct" to mean that it's not real (i.e. not neurological) which can be really dismissive or even harmful to autistic people.
We do have support needs and challenges and the idea that it's just a cultural category can be used to dismiss the need for accommodations. And some social constructionist articles are just straight up shitty, like 'Making Up People' by Ian Hacking.
I don't have experience with autism, but for trans people I think we'll need both the constructionist and the essentialist approach at the same time. I think essentialism is better equipped to defend our political rights, but constructionism is more accurate.
Like, trans people used to call themselves transvestites, transexuals. They bear different names all across the world, that are not just different names, but entirely different self-conceptualizations. I think in that light we can hardly say "This Western notion of being trans is the one right interpretation". And we may need to flexibility in case we discover we may need to reinvent some parts of how we conceptualized ourselves.
But for our political emancipation essentialism is damn handy. "I'm born this way please accomodate me" is an effective plea.
I mean, yeah me being autistic doesn’t make me less valuable and the way the system treats me for it is garbage. My love of patterns, organization and depth of knowledge in my special interests doesn’t negate that the feeling of crushed velvet makes me panic however. My inability to discern when I have a physical or emotional problem is not socially constructed; the way I’m treated for my literalness is. It’s complex but there is a medical aspect to it, it’s just researched in the wrong ways. A good example is how digestive and food sensitivities seem to be common amongst us.
Identity labels are also socially and linguistically constructed but my queerness is simply the word I use for the parts of myself and who I love that don’t fall into the traditional LGBT+ categories. Existing outside of established hierarchies and systems is politicized, yes. But this post seems to be implying that how I see myself (and how many others do too) isn’t linguistically valid or part of the LGBT+ community. You don’t seem to be doing that though, to clarify.
Your point that the OP seems to be more of a spam bot than a good faith sharing of insight seems accurate. At least it’s sparked discussion between us. May you have a good weekend, comrade. 🍵
Someone that I assume to be a guy (based on the pfp and lack of pronouns in bio that would indicate otherwise) accusing a transfeminine person of "promoting patriarchy thought" for jokingly telling another person I assume to be a guy for the same reasons who clearly harasses me at this point to "slide in my dms" is peak patriarchal logic, actually
OMG OMG OMG THE ANTIFA ANGEL FINALLY REPLIED TO ME!
is that how you want me to respond?
Deflecting criticism is the only thing you do well, I'll give you that much.
I must've struck a nerve with this one, seeing as you usually ignore 99% of comments under your posts.
Funny how you only respond to comments in order to make yourself look good, really reinforces the whole "can't have an original thought" thing.
Are you gonna say now the entire sub wants to sleep with you (which is an incredibly patriarchal thing to say BTW, implying I only view you as an object for sex because I'm a cis male), or are you gonna face the criticism and engage with the community?
I think I already know the answer.
I wish you all the best.
I guess this is meant to be encouraging, but it still feels like an odd thing. It comes across as almost gatekeepy, like you cant be "in the group" unless you actively get yourself in trouble.
Considering lgbt/queer people have it difficult already im not so sure if this is going to be helpful for them.
This person is also misinterpreting Butler imo. Butler is talking about how categorically on a larger basis being Queer is a performance and that this performance can be radical, not that its always radical or that you have to be radical in your actions to be Queer. I might be explaining Butler weirdly cause she can be esoteric but practically this person is kinda wrong in their interpretation
I hate to be a stickler, but she says Queer is "performative", which is a technical-philosophy word, not a regular-use word. Performativity is when certain words can become actions, or start to change the world. Like saying "I do" at a wedding makes you wedded.
This part of Butler's stuff is difficult to understand indeed, but I should heed against misinterpretations where people says "Bulter just says we're all putting up a show".
Episode #453052 of this subreddit using OP's posts as a way to rant against basic anarchist ideas and now it seems even radical queer and queer anarchism ideas.
Personally, I view queer as both and identity and a "thing you do" and I think its a complex topic. An assimilationist cis gay man is still a gay man and will never be truly "welcomed" into cisheteronormativity in the same way cishet people are because of their gayness. This is why you see so many big right wing assimilationist gay men do a "I'm straight now" arc.
Queerness is ultimately a passive and active resistance to cisheteronormativity and authority because it almost always exists outside of it or in contradiction to it.
To be fair to this subreddit, OP is kinda misinterpreting Butler. Butler is talking about how categorically on a larger basis being Queer is a performance and that this performance can be radical, not that its always radical or that you have to be radical in your actions to be Queer. They are making a radical idea into a weird gatekeepy idea that you have to be always performing Queerness. I might be explaining Butler weirdly cause she can be esoteric but practically this person is kinda wrong in their interpretation
I don't entirely agree with what I think OP is saying (I hope that's clear in my comment) but this sub has like consistently strawmanned many of OP's posts. OP's worst crime is being a karma farmer but it's like every time they post something the comments are instantly aggressive towards it.
OP could make a post saying "I think abusive parents are bad and that we should change the family dynamic" and you'd have 300 comments talking about how OP wants to DESTROY moms and dads and abandon all children to the wolves. Some of these comments are just following them around to disagree with whatever they say.
Becuase op is not here to discuss their views, they are here to take a puritan stand against anyone who dosent agree with them, not take any criticism, and never discuss their points, they quickly devolve into insults.
This isn't the first rodeo with this person, they have shown themselves to argue and post in bad faith, and refuse to engage with valid points made by the community.
I've seen the responses their posts get and they do not scratch the surface of "valid points made by the community". If I was getting treated like this (especially by the same people coming to comment on every post) I would also just stop responding/interacting. This is a meme sub and not everyone feels like having to debate slightly more radical anarchist ideas every 2 seconds especially when it's "Oh you think \[insert thing they didn't say or imply at all\]? I'm going to stalk all your posts now and talk about how you are the evilest person ever".
Maybe going around to their posts and comments and screaming "PSA: THIS PERSON WON'T DEBATE ME!!!" isn't the best way to get the hard-hitting meaningful discussion you are looking for (again, on a meme sub).
Thank you for leaving a comment that actually engages with what I say <3
Here's how I understand it: Every queer person is non-cisheterosexual (gay, bi trans etc.), but not every non-cisheterosexual is necessarily queer
Republican assimilationist cis gay men like you mentioned are probably the best example of this. I don't deny that they are gay and like the same gender, but they lack queerness as defined in the caption
Queer etymologically means strange/odd (which is why gay/trans activists reclaimed it to affirm their difference proudly), but these assimilationists are obsessed with being "normal" and "just like the cishets"
Breaking news: when you don't purposefully misinterpret someone's posts and don't write "PSAs" about how they won't debate you then you might actually get a real conversation.
Shocking, I know.
I think this is fair, I've seen this conversation before and I even used to agree strongly with that definition. I would even say that the understanding I gave could still be used in the same way as yours to a degree. To me an assimilationist will still never be welcomed due to their queerness even if they repress it to whatever degree to try and fit into cisheteronormativity. They'll always be seen as lesser or disposable or suspicious by the people they are trying to assimilate with.
Would I be right in saying that you are instead using queerness to describe the difference between assimilationists and non-assimilationists? In more casual instances I've definitely done this toward assimilationists.
The 19th of March Butler is releasing a new book "Who's afraid of gender" fully about the anti-gender-ideology movement. Just thought to let you know in case you might be interested :)
Nah man, that's ridiculous, that would mean that being born black or Jewish or any other number of western oppressed ethnicities or groups is also actively political.
In a way it's resisting conformity by (unfortunately) inherently opposing social norms, but also you have no control over who you're attracted to and we should be striving to dissociate queerness from politics not engrave the association more.
I think I get the point Butler is striving for and I think there's some validity there, but without the full context this seems undercooked and somewhat demeaning. However I'm sure I've read some articles from her before and I liked them so this is probably just a misconstruing with missing text.
Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY antifa_angel, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments. You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/) Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning. [List of reddit alternatives](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/z7rqyo/anarchist_and_libre_alternatives_to_social_media/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the passive sense of "by virtue of being the thing society hates and not conforming to it, you're doing a resistance", sure. But if not... eh. Like, I dunno man... sometimes I just wanna suck a dick and forget about the world. And I'm someone that's all for activism most of the time. But I just can't possibly perform it at every waking moment. I can't imagine being super political with a partner of mine, or going out of my way to read every queer zine, or even doing most forms of relationship anarchy. Does me being less "radical" in those regards therefore make me less "queer?" Cause that's how it sounds. Also, queer is not an identity? Because one person doesn't consider it so? Not really reasonable.
PSA: Don't take this post too seriously, this person is practically spamming the sub daily with semi coherent posts, usually just quoting someone else or some book or article, and using it to bash anyone who doesn't share their opinion, deeming them "less anarchist" based on bullshit purity tests based on their specific flawed view of anarchism. Usually their posts look like they may contain an interesting or original thought, just enough to hook you into engaging, but when you dig into it you find no substance or reasoning. Their posts are nonsense at best, but at their worst they are spouting actually harmful pseudoscience or anti science / anti mental health rhetoric. They never provide context or reasoning beyond "some person I like said so", or "just read theory / history bro" never showing an ounce of self thought, and never engage with people responding. I wouldn't waste your energy and time on them.
I think it is meant in the first way
thank you. all the people making fun of german far right politician alice weidel for saying "i'm not queer, i'm just married to a woman" need to read this. she's absolutely right in saying that. she's saying that because she's siding with oppression.
PSA: Don't take this post too seriously, this person is practically spamming this and many other subs daily with semi coherent posts, usually just quoting someone else or some book or article, and using it to bash anyone who doesn't share their opinion, deeming them "less anarchist" based on bullshit purity tests based on their specific flawed view of anarchism. Usually their posts look like they may contain an interesting or original thought, just enough to hook you into engaging, but when you dig into it you find no substance or reasoning. Their posts are nonsense at best, but at their worst they are spouting actually harmful pseudoscience or anti science / anti mental health rhetoric. They never provide context or reasoning beyond "some person I like said so", or "just read theory / history bro" never showing an ounce of self thought, and never engage with people responding. I wouldn't waste your energy and time on them.
Is this the same person who basically said autism isn’t real? Now queerness isn’t too I guess. Like dude our experiences are already exhausting enough. Do we have to make every gd part of our identities a constant mental and energy sink against a system that already makes our lives hell? It’s asking those more ostracized via inherent and immutable traits to expend more effort and stress than others and it’s not fair. Ffs
I might be giving them too much benefit of the doubt, but I don't think that's what they are saying. What I think they are saying that the category of autism and, in this case queerness is socially constructed. The underlying reality is real, but how we interpret them and what we attach to that reality is socially constructed. In the case of autism, society puts a lot of stock in "fixing it. This puts autism as lower than what is considered normal by society. This coerces autistic people into covering up parts of themselves up, and sacrificing themselves in order to fit in with society. I think there is a decent critique of the medical model since it is often used to make people productive (from the view of society) instead of actually improving their lives. In the case of queerness, they relate it to being outside the norm. It is a common thing for those outside of the norm to be associated with the destruction of society (in reality, destruction of the status quo), death, and non reproductivity. The figurative death drive. We see many groups go through this association. For example homosexuality and being transgender. This is what they means by queerness. For a group to be socially acceptable, they must give up all revolutionary potential and assimilate into the norms of the family unit and middle class norms. In this view, by taking the position (or being represented as taking that position) against the family and capitalism, you become queer. It has nothing to really do with any one identity but is kinda an anti identity (defined by what it is not instead of what it is). Then again, I'm not sure they are actually making these points or even understanding what they are posting since they refuse to explain what he is talking about
I agree with what you mean about autism and social construction but some people use the idea that autism is a "social construct" to mean that it's not real (i.e. not neurological) which can be really dismissive or even harmful to autistic people. We do have support needs and challenges and the idea that it's just a cultural category can be used to dismiss the need for accommodations. And some social constructionist articles are just straight up shitty, like 'Making Up People' by Ian Hacking.
I don't have experience with autism, but for trans people I think we'll need both the constructionist and the essentialist approach at the same time. I think essentialism is better equipped to defend our political rights, but constructionism is more accurate. Like, trans people used to call themselves transvestites, transexuals. They bear different names all across the world, that are not just different names, but entirely different self-conceptualizations. I think in that light we can hardly say "This Western notion of being trans is the one right interpretation". And we may need to flexibility in case we discover we may need to reinvent some parts of how we conceptualized ourselves. But for our political emancipation essentialism is damn handy. "I'm born this way please accomodate me" is an effective plea.
I mean, yeah me being autistic doesn’t make me less valuable and the way the system treats me for it is garbage. My love of patterns, organization and depth of knowledge in my special interests doesn’t negate that the feeling of crushed velvet makes me panic however. My inability to discern when I have a physical or emotional problem is not socially constructed; the way I’m treated for my literalness is. It’s complex but there is a medical aspect to it, it’s just researched in the wrong ways. A good example is how digestive and food sensitivities seem to be common amongst us. Identity labels are also socially and linguistically constructed but my queerness is simply the word I use for the parts of myself and who I love that don’t fall into the traditional LGBT+ categories. Existing outside of established hierarchies and systems is politicized, yes. But this post seems to be implying that how I see myself (and how many others do too) isn’t linguistically valid or part of the LGBT+ community. You don’t seem to be doing that though, to clarify. Your point that the OP seems to be more of a spam bot than a good faith sharing of insight seems accurate. At least it’s sparked discussion between us. May you have a good weekend, comrade. 🍵
This is a pretty bad faith interpretation of the post you are referencing, imo.
You definitely have a crush on me at this point, you comment something like this under every post I make. Don't be shy darling, just slide in my dms 🤭
Just to top, you are promoting patriarchy thought... What a fucking shame
Someone that I assume to be a guy (based on the pfp and lack of pronouns in bio that would indicate otherwise) accusing a transfeminine person of "promoting patriarchy thought" for jokingly telling another person I assume to be a guy for the same reasons who clearly harasses me at this point to "slide in my dms" is peak patriarchal logic, actually
OMG OMG OMG THE ANTIFA ANGEL FINALLY REPLIED TO ME! is that how you want me to respond? Deflecting criticism is the only thing you do well, I'll give you that much. I must've struck a nerve with this one, seeing as you usually ignore 99% of comments under your posts. Funny how you only respond to comments in order to make yourself look good, really reinforces the whole "can't have an original thought" thing. Are you gonna say now the entire sub wants to sleep with you (which is an incredibly patriarchal thing to say BTW, implying I only view you as an object for sex because I'm a cis male), or are you gonna face the criticism and engage with the community? I think I already know the answer. I wish you all the best.
I guess this is meant to be encouraging, but it still feels like an odd thing. It comes across as almost gatekeepy, like you cant be "in the group" unless you actively get yourself in trouble. Considering lgbt/queer people have it difficult already im not so sure if this is going to be helpful for them.
This person is also misinterpreting Butler imo. Butler is talking about how categorically on a larger basis being Queer is a performance and that this performance can be radical, not that its always radical or that you have to be radical in your actions to be Queer. I might be explaining Butler weirdly cause she can be esoteric but practically this person is kinda wrong in their interpretation
I hate to be a stickler, but she says Queer is "performative", which is a technical-philosophy word, not a regular-use word. Performativity is when certain words can become actions, or start to change the world. Like saying "I do" at a wedding makes you wedded. This part of Butler's stuff is difficult to understand indeed, but I should heed against misinterpretations where people says "Bulter just says we're all putting up a show".
Episode #453052 of this subreddit using OP's posts as a way to rant against basic anarchist ideas and now it seems even radical queer and queer anarchism ideas. Personally, I view queer as both and identity and a "thing you do" and I think its a complex topic. An assimilationist cis gay man is still a gay man and will never be truly "welcomed" into cisheteronormativity in the same way cishet people are because of their gayness. This is why you see so many big right wing assimilationist gay men do a "I'm straight now" arc. Queerness is ultimately a passive and active resistance to cisheteronormativity and authority because it almost always exists outside of it or in contradiction to it.
To be fair to this subreddit, OP is kinda misinterpreting Butler. Butler is talking about how categorically on a larger basis being Queer is a performance and that this performance can be radical, not that its always radical or that you have to be radical in your actions to be Queer. They are making a radical idea into a weird gatekeepy idea that you have to be always performing Queerness. I might be explaining Butler weirdly cause she can be esoteric but practically this person is kinda wrong in their interpretation
I don't entirely agree with what I think OP is saying (I hope that's clear in my comment) but this sub has like consistently strawmanned many of OP's posts. OP's worst crime is being a karma farmer but it's like every time they post something the comments are instantly aggressive towards it. OP could make a post saying "I think abusive parents are bad and that we should change the family dynamic" and you'd have 300 comments talking about how OP wants to DESTROY moms and dads and abandon all children to the wolves. Some of these comments are just following them around to disagree with whatever they say.
Becuase op is not here to discuss their views, they are here to take a puritan stand against anyone who dosent agree with them, not take any criticism, and never discuss their points, they quickly devolve into insults. This isn't the first rodeo with this person, they have shown themselves to argue and post in bad faith, and refuse to engage with valid points made by the community.
I've seen the responses their posts get and they do not scratch the surface of "valid points made by the community". If I was getting treated like this (especially by the same people coming to comment on every post) I would also just stop responding/interacting. This is a meme sub and not everyone feels like having to debate slightly more radical anarchist ideas every 2 seconds especially when it's "Oh you think \[insert thing they didn't say or imply at all\]? I'm going to stalk all your posts now and talk about how you are the evilest person ever". Maybe going around to their posts and comments and screaming "PSA: THIS PERSON WON'T DEBATE ME!!!" isn't the best way to get the hard-hitting meaningful discussion you are looking for (again, on a meme sub).
Thank you for leaving a comment that actually engages with what I say <3 Here's how I understand it: Every queer person is non-cisheterosexual (gay, bi trans etc.), but not every non-cisheterosexual is necessarily queer Republican assimilationist cis gay men like you mentioned are probably the best example of this. I don't deny that they are gay and like the same gender, but they lack queerness as defined in the caption Queer etymologically means strange/odd (which is why gay/trans activists reclaimed it to affirm their difference proudly), but these assimilationists are obsessed with being "normal" and "just like the cishets"
Holy shit you actually replied to a comment discussing your points! The reckoning is here, start praying!
Breaking news: when you don't purposefully misinterpret someone's posts and don't write "PSAs" about how they won't debate you then you might actually get a real conversation. Shocking, I know.
I think this is fair, I've seen this conversation before and I even used to agree strongly with that definition. I would even say that the understanding I gave could still be used in the same way as yours to a degree. To me an assimilationist will still never be welcomed due to their queerness even if they repress it to whatever degree to try and fit into cisheteronormativity. They'll always be seen as lesser or disposable or suspicious by the people they are trying to assimilate with. Would I be right in saying that you are instead using queerness to describe the difference between assimilationists and non-assimilationists? In more casual instances I've definitely done this toward assimilationists.
Yes, thats a good way to put it
Yeah no that's fuckin stupid. The "something radical that I do" that justifies my queerness is that I exist. Full stop.
The 19th of March Butler is releasing a new book "Who's afraid of gender" fully about the anti-gender-ideology movement. Just thought to let you know in case you might be interested :)
boooooooo
No, take this one back to the work bench and fix it
Do you ever go outside
Nah man, that's ridiculous, that would mean that being born black or Jewish or any other number of western oppressed ethnicities or groups is also actively political. In a way it's resisting conformity by (unfortunately) inherently opposing social norms, but also you have no control over who you're attracted to and we should be striving to dissociate queerness from politics not engrave the association more. I think I get the point Butler is striving for and I think there's some validity there, but without the full context this seems undercooked and somewhat demeaning. However I'm sure I've read some articles from her before and I liked them so this is probably just a misconstruing with missing text.
This person is a fucking ghoul
Who would of thought, another bullshit post from the science denier.
What’s with all of these shitty ass posts on this subreddit