josef k
- Thread starter vimothy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa argument by tag seems like an odd hobby at least we can spell clever you bellend autistic foreplay autoflatular narcosis barty's entertainment bell end pantomime cancelled concerned parent craner's aggressive gargling lounge act den of despair disgusting old men erectile dysfunction finger wagging i blame twitter i've got mates intervention john's mates josef and his technicoloured meme coat josef k's sick burns kanye without the talent meritless thread no wonder brits sneeked into ira centcom north london house mafia not angry just disappointed not what john was hoping for orange penguin bars paying dress up piety as surrogate sexual dominance sebastian semantic apocalypse now she's not going to fuck you!!! sid viscous vs robocock such bloody awful poetry the evola virus trying to shag a lecturer half my age turd reich vanquishing the goblin nonce vim's sensual meringue hostility group vimothy killed jungle vimothy's hectoring wait till dad gets home we're not going to shag her joe what are you trying to achieve? what is the end goal? what is the point of this thread? who cares? world's worst dinner party you lot aren't as cleaver as you think z haterzzzzzzz
Lol at 'consort'. It was me and Daniel. I asked Home if he'd support it and he said no, he himself had been called a fascist for a decade and wouldn't sue the person. Fair enough.
For the millionth time, though, the point is that people are lying, and that many leftists (including me) are being called 'fascists'. If we want to live in a world in which random people get to decide who speaks and shuts down anyone they disagree with by using words like this and making up stuff, then great! We basically kind of do. I would rather people not lose work and not be lied about.
Who's lost a job? The Wire writing gig was a small side-hustle. I know you valued it, and the way they withdrew it was unimpressively mealy-mouthed, and that must have hurt. But it wasn't a livelihood. Your actual job you resigned from without, you say, any pressure from your employers to do so. Has Daniel ever had a job in his life?
This isn't the US, where someone can be dismissed at any time without cause. Most employers would find it difficult to sack someone just because it had been alleged that they'd said repulsive things on the internet (unless one was the brand ambassador for Footlocker, or something, in which case a dubious public reputation would be a liability).
I think what you're actually talking about is finding it difficult to get opportunities to speak at events, or be published in magazines, when the people in charge of those things regard you as too dodgy to do business with, or as seen to be too dodgy for them to be seen to do business with. And admittedly for some people that is a living, and reputational distress can impair their ability to make a living at it. You had a reputation that was worth something, in that market, and you shredded it; Turner's contribution to that nosedive was marginal. The bizarrely over-the-top "Open Letter" got people talking, but what they were really talking about was the spectacle of you in that room with Miller and Murphy, your defense of Miller's stance and actions in the LD50 affair, your "reasonable" defense of the UK TERFs' bigoted and paranoid campaign against the GRA. They didn't need to be misled into seeing that there was something extremely wrong there, something that they didn't want to be associated with.
And Miller, the ostensible victim in this ridiculous lawsuit? I don't believe that he has ever had a reputation in that market that was worth much - the almost universal consensus, going back quite some way, seems to be that that he's a malignant imbecile. Rather than building a reputation on the basis of writing that people esteemed, work they wanted to be associated with, he's built a reputation on the basis of provocation and edgelordism. The kinds of people who find that attractive and want to work with it - Morbid, say - have not been discouraged by Turner's attack.
I think what you're actually talking about is finding it difficult to get opportunities to speak at events, or be published in magazines, when the people in charge of those things regard you as too dodgy to do business with, or as seen to be too dodgy for them to be seen to do business with. And admittedly for some people that is a living, and reputational distress can impair their ability to make a living at it. You had a reputation that was worth something, in that market, and you shredded it; Turner's contribution to that nosedive was marginal. The bizarrely over-the-top "Open Letter" got people talking, but what they were really talking about was the spectacle of you in that room with Miller and Murphy, your defense of Miller's stance and actions in the LD50 affair, your "reasonable" defense of the UK TERFs' bigoted and paranoid campaign against the GRA. They didn't need to be misled into seeing that there was something extremely wrong there, something that they didn't want to be associated with.
And Miller, the ostensible victim in this ridiculous lawsuit? I don't believe that he has ever had a reputation in that market that was worth much - the almost universal consensus, going back quite some way, seems to be that that he's a malignant imbecile. Rather than building a reputation on the basis of writing that people esteemed, work they wanted to be associated with, he's built a reputation on the basis of provocation and edgelordism. The kinds of people who find that attractive and want to work with it - Morbid, say - have not been discouraged by Turner's attack.
Believe it or not, it's about the truth. Why lie about someone you disagree with if your arguments are in order? I said publicly I have nothing to lose: it doesn't mean I won't stick up for people - many people and institutions - who are accused of things they haven't done. Have a look at the Athens Bienalle letter: http://athensbiennale.org/en/uncate...mation-an-answer-to-luke-turners-open-letter/
I am on the left and always have been. I am against authoritarianism of all kinds, state, group or individual. In the past few years, there have been multiple attempts to lose people work by accusing them of 'hatred', 'bigotry', 'fascism' etc. when none of these things are true. I think the tactics of no-platforming made sense when fascists were speaking in the street - I myself have been on many anti-fascist protests. But what's happening now is something else - anonymous open letters, emails to employers, people not using their names to attack others, not meeting face-to-face to listen, but just lying, smearing and damaging, often just because they've suffered a narcissistic wound and want to lash out. Calling someone a 'fascist' is an emotive thing to do: it frightens people. It conjures up demons and dark things and institutions are generally risk-averse. It's a kind of magic in a way. Using it today often doesn't seem to have anything to do with historical fascism, but is just a stand-in word for 'person I don't like/ideas I don't agree with'. The internet is a medium that allows for non-face-to-face communication, the spreading of anxiety, fear and paranoia. If person A disagrees with person B and wanted to lose them work, but had to go to person B's boss's office to make the suggestion it would be quite a thing - B's boss would probably be like 'hmm, I'm sorry you disagreed, but I'm not going to fire this person'. But anonymous open letters, scary tweets and repeated emails allow for power at a distance.
People are afraid of being 'cancelled' - they have things to lose and people to support - so they don't speak up when they disagree or feel cognitive dissonance. Then who gets to set the agenda? I would rather talk to people face-to-face about where and when we disagree, not in order to convince of the 'correctness' of my position, necessarily, I might be wrong, but rather so we can see even when and what the point of disagreement might be. The idea that we simply dismiss and smear people we disagree with is abhorrent to me. How are we ever going to win anyone over if we just call people 'fascist'? If anything that will push people further away. There is so much scare-mongering and fear and division. I think art and culture are places to confront and understand difficult things - repressing humour and the unconscious, difficult thoughts, feelings and desires is going to make the world more authoritarian, not less, and I think more likely to lead to new forms of fascism. I don't want authoritarian individuals to dictate what we can and can't read, talk about, what questions we might ask, what art we might make, who we might talk to.
I am on the left and always have been. I am against authoritarianism of all kinds, state, group or individual. In the past few years, there have been multiple attempts to lose people work by accusing them of 'hatred', 'bigotry', 'fascism' etc. when none of these things are true. I think the tactics of no-platforming made sense when fascists were speaking in the street - I myself have been on many anti-fascist protests. But what's happening now is something else - anonymous open letters, emails to employers, people not using their names to attack others, not meeting face-to-face to listen, but just lying, smearing and damaging, often just because they've suffered a narcissistic wound and want to lash out. Calling someone a 'fascist' is an emotive thing to do: it frightens people. It conjures up demons and dark things and institutions are generally risk-averse. It's a kind of magic in a way. Using it today often doesn't seem to have anything to do with historical fascism, but is just a stand-in word for 'person I don't like/ideas I don't agree with'. The internet is a medium that allows for non-face-to-face communication, the spreading of anxiety, fear and paranoia. If person A disagrees with person B and wanted to lose them work, but had to go to person B's boss's office to make the suggestion it would be quite a thing - B's boss would probably be like 'hmm, I'm sorry you disagreed, but I'm not going to fire this person'. But anonymous open letters, scary tweets and repeated emails allow for power at a distance.
People are afraid of being 'cancelled' - they have things to lose and people to support - so they don't speak up when they disagree or feel cognitive dissonance. Then who gets to set the agenda? I would rather talk to people face-to-face about where and when we disagree, not in order to convince of the 'correctness' of my position, necessarily, I might be wrong, but rather so we can see even when and what the point of disagreement might be. The idea that we simply dismiss and smear people we disagree with is abhorrent to me. How are we ever going to win anyone over if we just call people 'fascist'? If anything that will push people further away. There is so much scare-mongering and fear and division. I think art and culture are places to confront and understand difficult things - repressing humour and the unconscious, difficult thoughts, feelings and desires is going to make the world more authoritarian, not less, and I think more likely to lead to new forms of fascism. I don't want authoritarian individuals to dictate what we can and can't read, talk about, what questions we might ask, what art we might make, who we might talk to.
I'm not going to go into detail here, but it's a lot more sinister than you might imagine. And it's not just about The Wire, though I agree they behaved with scarcely-believable cowardice and stupidity. Daniel has had plenty of jobs. I can meet up with you for a coffee and tell you about various things if you're interested.
God, it's like talking to a tape recorder.
Molly Klein called you a fascist and a misogynist for years. As ugly and upsetting as her tirades against you were, they didn't persuade people generally - outside of a narrow circle of her fellow cranks - that you were either of those things. Why not? Because it not only wasn't true, it was evidently not true, to any reasonable observer. Your reputation was held intact by what you were seen to do and say. Klein was a nuisance, and her attacks were unfair and hurtful, but in the end it was a well-known internet headcase ranting about someone she apparently held a deep, irrational loathing for. Everyone could see that.
The problems that you now have within the art world are almost entirely due to what you have been seen to do and say, the choices you've very publicly made about whom to believe, whom to defend, whom to support, with an often disturbingly blind loyalty. Miller's problems are absolutely to do with what he has been seen to do and say, who he is seen to be. If this were not the case, then Luke Turner's attacks on the pair of you would be just more internet noise - unfair, upsetting, but no threat to your real standing among people who knew who you were and what you stood for.
I don't know whether you really believe that all the people who once supported you, on the basis of who you were and what you stood for, have changed their minds purely because someone tried to get you "cancelled". I don't know whether you really believe that all the people who think Miller's a repugnant grifter only think that because they've been misinformed. But if you do believe that, you're deluded.
Molly Klein called you a fascist and a misogynist for years. As ugly and upsetting as her tirades against you were, they didn't persuade people generally - outside of a narrow circle of her fellow cranks - that you were either of those things. Why not? Because it not only wasn't true, it was evidently not true, to any reasonable observer. Your reputation was held intact by what you were seen to do and say. Klein was a nuisance, and her attacks were unfair and hurtful, but in the end it was a well-known internet headcase ranting about someone she apparently held a deep, irrational loathing for. Everyone could see that.
The problems that you now have within the art world are almost entirely due to what you have been seen to do and say, the choices you've very publicly made about whom to believe, whom to defend, whom to support, with an often disturbingly blind loyalty. Miller's problems are absolutely to do with what he has been seen to do and say, who he is seen to be. If this were not the case, then Luke Turner's attacks on the pair of you would be just more internet noise - unfair, upsetting, but no threat to your real standing among people who knew who you were and what you stood for.
I don't know whether you really believe that all the people who once supported you, on the basis of who you were and what you stood for, have changed their minds purely because someone tried to get you "cancelled". I don't know whether you really believe that all the people who think Miller's a repugnant grifter only think that because they've been misinformed. But if you do believe that, you're deluded.
None of my positions have changed. I am a leftist, a feminist (though I do not agree with much contemporary feminism) and an anti-authoritarian. Many people haven't 'changed their minds' about me, but it's ok if you have. I don't care about 'the art world', I don't any more care about academia. These are places held together at the moment by a lot of fear and conformity. It is astonishing how fast even a minor disagreement on whatever the current 'correct' positions to have get you punished. The internet assists in this paranoia a lot, because it works at a distance and doesn't involve face-to-face discussion. If you want a world dictated to you by the most paranoid, puritanical, authoritarian people, then, cool, we're almost there!
luka
Well-known member
I still like to imagine the conversation moving out of this grubby cul-de-sac and into the forum at large so that it becomes less personal and more about the ideas and beliefs which are, purportedly, the basis of contention. Talk the 'issues' (if there are any) through and see where we end up. Or is it all so stale, predictable and over-rehearsed that there's nothing to be gained from performing that dance?
Luka - I'm totally up for this. I think it's a good idea. A lot of me suspects or even knows that I'm being punished for not agreeing with current line on sex/gender. Mark's vampire castle essay remains relevant. I am out for the day but maybe we could start a new thread on what we think/what we believe/what we disagree on/psychedelic visions etc. Believe it or not I do respect a lot of people on here, even or especially where we disagree.
luka
Well-known member
Well obviously it's partly to do with gender and partly to do with with Josef k and partly to do with old emotional wounds, sores, resentments, grudges within your particularly intense friendship/enemy group.
This probably isn't the place to sort out the personal stuff and it's a bit creepy when personal stuff disguises itself as something else (more high minded).
I know you said poetix is too sanctimonious but I think he's done pretty well since coming back and he's honest about not knowing quite where he stands at the moment. It's a weird time. A good time for conversation and working stuff out as we go.
This probably isn't the place to sort out the personal stuff and it's a bit creepy when personal stuff disguises itself as something else (more high minded).
I know you said poetix is too sanctimonious but I think he's done pretty well since coming back and he's honest about not knowing quite where he stands at the moment. It's a weird time. A good time for conversation and working stuff out as we go.
What are the things that are really at issue?
One is "cancel culture", the claim that this is a real thing, of which people live in fear etc., and that the right way to look at very polarised issues like trans rights is to see one side as intolerant authoritarians trying to silence the other. To my mind this is like "you can't even dress up in blackface nowadays!", i.e. the problem isn't actually political correctness gone mad, and people who try to frame it that way are not acting in good faith. Likewise "you can't even invite racist ideologists to give Skype talks promoting their racist ideology at an art gallery nowadays". Indeed - you shouldn't do that, and it's good that you feel that you can't.
Take one of Nina's favourite examples - Sam Kriss, who behaved with a regrettably familiar kind of bullish, swaggering sexual entitlement on a date, with someone who subsequently retaliated against him for clashing with her over trans rights by circulating (initially in TERF forums such as mayday4women) a lurid description of his past conduct. The gist was: "this man claims to be a feminist ally, but he's just another #metoo offender, and his use of slurs like 'TERF' to describe feminists like me is of a piece with his generally uncouth and violently misogynist disposition". This was a serious, and seriously effective, reputational attack, which did some real damage. But note: 1) it was, as Kriss acknowledged, actually true that he'd done what she said he'd did, and 2) the direction of travel: this wasn't Kriss's opponent getting trashed for being a TERF, this was Kriss getting trashed for being a sexual yobbo. It doesn't at all fit the narrative of people living in fear of being "cancelled" for holding the "wrong" opinion, or being lied about by enemies who make things up to defame them. Kriss's opinion was the right one, from the point of view of those with whom he was previously in good reputational standing.
One is "cancel culture", the claim that this is a real thing, of which people live in fear etc., and that the right way to look at very polarised issues like trans rights is to see one side as intolerant authoritarians trying to silence the other. To my mind this is like "you can't even dress up in blackface nowadays!", i.e. the problem isn't actually political correctness gone mad, and people who try to frame it that way are not acting in good faith. Likewise "you can't even invite racist ideologists to give Skype talks promoting their racist ideology at an art gallery nowadays". Indeed - you shouldn't do that, and it's good that you feel that you can't.
Take one of Nina's favourite examples - Sam Kriss, who behaved with a regrettably familiar kind of bullish, swaggering sexual entitlement on a date, with someone who subsequently retaliated against him for clashing with her over trans rights by circulating (initially in TERF forums such as mayday4women) a lurid description of his past conduct. The gist was: "this man claims to be a feminist ally, but he's just another #metoo offender, and his use of slurs like 'TERF' to describe feminists like me is of a piece with his generally uncouth and violently misogynist disposition". This was a serious, and seriously effective, reputational attack, which did some real damage. But note: 1) it was, as Kriss acknowledged, actually true that he'd done what she said he'd did, and 2) the direction of travel: this wasn't Kriss's opponent getting trashed for being a TERF, this was Kriss getting trashed for being a sexual yobbo. It doesn't at all fit the narrative of people living in fear of being "cancelled" for holding the "wrong" opinion, or being lied about by enemies who make things up to defame them. Kriss's opinion was the right one, from the point of view of those with whom he was previously in good reputational standing.
luka
Well-known member
It's true that groups police the behaviour of their members. Dissensus polices my behaviour which sometimes pisses me off but mostly I appreciate it, at least in the long run. Sometimes, if I think they are wrong, I pour all my energy into winning them over, but mostly they are right and it gives me a chance to adjust my trajectory accordingly. Encountering resistance doesn't automatically mean you are wrong but it does usually recommend a change of approach, that or splitting with the group altogether (as in, for instance, outgrowing your home town and moving to the big city.)
I'm quite interested in that stuff. Group bodies are often an improvement on individual bodies and thinking works better as conversation than in heroic isolation.
I'm quite interested in that stuff. Group bodies are often an improvement on individual bodies and thinking works better as conversation than in heroic isolation.