this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025

225 points (95.9% liked)

Flippanarchy

658 readers

5 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules

If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

225

Being able to recognise, and willing to act on red flags WITHIN a community or organisation is vital to its success (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 1 week ago by ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

ID: From a Comrade posted:

"In the coming year, things will pop off. When they do, someone will volunteer to do security. They will possibly show up with a lot of battle rattle and a take-charge, can-do attitude.

Do not let them do security. Ask them to read some bell hooks. Ask them how many women they know trust them. Ask them to do some reproductive labor first, like working in a kitchen. Talk to them in depth about political theory. Understand their motivations and their relationship to violence and power.

Over half of people who want to do security, are people who should never do security. The biggest red flag for weeding out bad security people, is that they are eager to do security."

all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is definitely a conundrum. To some degree, everyone should have a mind to physical defense, but there's a lot of value to relieving most people from that being their primary concern by making physical defense some people's primary concern.

There will always be some risk, especially when people who don't know each other very well are coming together to try to achieve similar goals.

Ideas:

Rotate individuals in and out of security duties on a regular basis, like hourly. This reduces the risk that "wild cards" present, as well as helping everyone get experience doing different tasks and working with different people.
Designate physical security roles at events which don't necessarily neeed it. The lower stakes allow room for adjustment, practice, and experience without "mistakes" creating a huge impact.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If you'd made this comment in a vacuum, I'd generally agree, but as it relates to this post, I don't.

To some degree, everyone should have a mind to physical defense,

For starters, we're talking about security, not self defence. So while yes, everyone who is able should learn some degree of self defence, not everyone can, or should not only be armed, but be given the power over others that comes with being armed.

Rotate individuals

A rotation doesn't solve the problem of violent and or power hungry misogynists (or racists, or queerphobes or so on, all of which exist on the left just like they do everywhere else in society) having a weapon and the power that comes with it.

Not everyone should be given a weapon, it's as simple as that, and putting other members of the group at risk for the sake of superficial inclusion (read: soothing the fragile egos of power hungry people who refuse to even acknowledge their privilege, let alone check it) is not the solution.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think we're really that far apart here.

At the end of the day, security is physical defense, use of force. That's the level to which conflicts can escalate.

There's always risk, and depending on the circumstances, the participants present may see the risk of weaker security as greater than Specified Person standing guard. The ideas I put forward - rotation, low stakes "practice runs" - are not intended to eliminate risk, only to reduce it. Hell, security doesn't have to mean wieliding a firearm. Just a strong physical presence of multiple people can be enough. Batons, pepper spray, simple physical strength can all be put to use before firearms are.

Definitely - someone you don't know shows up to your event with a bunch of tacticool gear and a rifle and says "I'll run security" - the fuck you will, pick up a shovel and start filling sandbags. But in cases where it's not so clear cut, and where there's a clear need for security, decisions would need to be made on the fly. Already having some ideas in mind about how to minimize risk wouldn't hurt.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think the key point for me is that the needs and safety of the more marginalised people in a group should always be prioritised over anything else, which is not the same as expecting all risk to be eliminated, but otherwise we're just maintaining harmful structures, in which case, what's the point?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah - maybe I failed to clarify this:

When I'm thinking about "security," I'm thinking about securing events from people who oppose the event or the people at it. For example, if you have some people who are doing an occupy-style thing, camped out, someone is going to need to be on watch while most people are sleeping. Today, the most serious thing they should have is the aforementioned pepper spray and baton, along with a very loud whistle. If something kicks off in the middle of the night, it's going to be all hands on deck right quick.

I'm not thinking about "internal security."

My ideas are also more of a "if you have to have physical security, maybe these notions will reduce the risk of the people performing that job being counterproductive."

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what internal security means, the kind of security I'm thinking about is communal - the people tasked with keeping the group safe, be it during direct action, a stay in a safe house, living daily life in a squat or other community on the outskirts of society, all of it, and in my mind they are armed with firearms to oppose outside threats like cops and out of uniform fascists.

the most serious thing they should have is the aforementioned pepper spray and baton, along with a very loud whistle

This falls under self defence in my eyes, which is why I made the differentiation in the first reply, but now I think we've both clarified, and I agree were generally on the same page - those means (pepper spray, baton, whistle), along with a buddy system to keep each other in check seems perfectly reasonable and would be less restrictive as to who could safely be tasked with the job.

Still something we always should be keeping in mind, who we give power to, and who we might be taking power away from by doing so.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what internal security means, ...

"Internal security" would be along the lines of an ad hoc police enforcing rules or behaviors of participants, as opposed to defending participants from external aggression.

Still something we always should be keeping in mind, who we give power to, and who we might be taking power away from by doing so.

100%. It's important to have these conversations now, so that decisions can be made in the moment with greater insight. You're a good person for bringing up things that need discussion and then engaging. Thank you.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

“Internal security” would be along the lines of an ad hoc police enforcing rules or behaviors of participants, as opposed to defending participants from external aggression.

Oh yeah, no, we don't want that..

As for the rest, I appreciate it but there's no need really, just trying my best with the few resources I have, and definitely not always engaging lmao, but I do appreciate being able to at least have these conversations with some people lol so thank you, too. 😊

[–] shades@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

¡Not It!

¡¡¡NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

'Ask them how many women they know trust them' Strange sort of question to go around asking people, maybe not the soundest vetting process

[–] psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, expecting misogynists to self-report is pretty unlikely to work.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You're missing the point - they are self reporting, even though they don't mean to. As you can see happening here - simply asking the question is enough for the worst types to weed themselves out by instantly getting defensive and prioritising their own feelings (which are at most of mild discomfort, but to them feel like violent oppression because they're used to always being centred and catered for) over the safety and equity of everyone in the group.

The ones who pass this most superficial questioning without throwing a complete tantrum are automatically much more likely to fit the task at hand, and even if they aren't, at least they've proven to be capable of facing the most mild and indirect kind of criticism that exists, making them significantly more likely to be open to learning and improving.

[–] psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I work around some of the most misogynistic men. I've asked them how many female friends they have. They insist all women love them. They are not correct, so they're either lying or deceiving themselves. My point is that they will lie to you if you simply ask a straightforward question like that.

Something like "Who is your favorite female celebrity?" might be more revealing. Still possible to be deceptive with an answer to that, but they'd probably blurt out a porn actress' name or something. Ynowutimsayn?

(Edit: at the moment I'm remembering Simone Giertz, the "queen of shitty robots". That would be my answer if you put me on the spot right now)

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

They are not correct, so they’re either lying or deceiving themselves. My point is that they will lie to you if you simply ask a straightforward question like that.

And mine (and I presume original OP's) point is that you know that they're lying to you, and therefore the question has served its purpose either way.

E: it's also there to ascertain how they regard and treat the real relationships with women in their real lives, not a memory test for names of people they've never had anything to do with.

[–] psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I only know they're lying because I know other women who know them.

The question I gave as an example is meant to reveal whether they respect women as human beings, not a memory test.

Communication with you has been difficult. Please try to understand me. I intend to be friendly with you.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Wow.

I only know they’re lying because I know other women who know them.

And I know, like many other women and non-binary people (including the ones whose knowledge and experience you're relying on, while refusing to acknowledge it has any value), from a lifetime of lived personal experience.

The question I gave as an example is meant to reveal whether they respect women as human beings, not a memory test.

Well it won't reveal that, and anyone who even half notices celebrity news will be able to pull a couple of names out of their ass, so it is nothing but a memory test.

Communication with you has been difficult. Please try to understand me. I intend to be friendly with you.

First off, fuck you and your tone policing.

I understand you perfectly I just think you're wrong, and the fact that you're framing that as me being "difficult" is problematic on so many fucking levels, including being classic misogyny.

Second of all, maybe if you'd have invested a tenth (or any!) of the time and energy you have arguing with me, trying to fix something that no one asked you to fix and that more importantly and demonstrably doesn't need fixing, in to addressing and calling out the men in this thread who prove exactly just how effective the original question is, I might have a little more patience for your noise.

But all you're doing is proving that you are incapable of, at the very fucking least, shutting up and listening to the people directly impacted by misogyny, instead of talking over us for the sake of being "right" (even when you're really not).

Kind of like:

They will possibly show up with a lot of battle rattle and a take-charge, can-do attitude.

🤔

I should have trusted my gut all the way back at your "not like other men" spiel..

I hope you take this as an opportunity to self reflect, recognise your problematic behaviour, and do better, but I won't be holding my breath nor sticking around to find out, I'm done wasting my time and energy here.

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I think you're reading way to much into my critique of a poorly thought out vetting question. I agree it is useful to know the people you put into positions of power are trustworthy and trusted by vulnerable groups, but you need to ask the community if they trust the candidate, not the other way around.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Strange sort of question to go around asking people

Not if you're prioritising the safety of women ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How would you even answer that? Guess? Say "hang on, let me go and ask all the women I know if they trust me"? By trust I'm assuming we mean 'feel safe around'. It's dumb to rely on self reported answers, particularly if you don't trust the interviewee in the first place (which the post clearly doesn't)

[–] genevieve@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It’s a question that should get someone thinking.

Kneejerk answers of “all women trust me” are a red flag.

Someone who actually ponders the question and is honest about who doesn’t trust them and why would be enlightening.

“Sara doesn’t trust me because I yelled at her during our first date” is very different from “Helen doesn’t trust me because our joint business venture imploded.”

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

"I've never had any bad experiences with the women I know, they seem comfortable around me but how far does that comfort go? How far do they trust me? What are they trusting me with? Whay is this question actually asking?" - Is a more average train of thought through that question. You're assuming that 1) everyone knows someone who doesn't trust them, and 2) knows that they aren't trusted and why

[–] shades@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

Kneejerk answers of “all women trust me” are a red flag.

“All women trust me, to be a douchebag”

Certainly there must be a middle ground.

How about instead of, “all women trust me” we pick from, “I would definitely have sex with that man” vs “I would never have sex with that man”

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago

Exactly.

And losing your shit over the mere suggestion of being asked that question is so much more than a flag, it's a red flashing neon banner with alarms going off.

Yet those with the most fragile of egos and most privilege (which they refuse to even acknowledge) to lose simply can't help but tell on themselves.

It's actually pretty fucking effective!

[–] shades@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

How would you even answer that? Guess?

I would imagine, one lies about it. Maybe instead of relying on the persons desire to be said security position, they can proclaim, “maybe me” with links to their decade long social media presence vetting their incellyness. Where other users can now input their opinion on whether they feel said individual would behave appropriately to an agreed upon code of conduct vs the possibility of them going rogue. Shouldn’t even consider anyone who can’t sign anything with a verifiable key.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

If someone's coming in to be a bad actor, they'll just lie about how many women trust them. I can't think of a way to vet that sort of thing online.

[–] FinchHaven@sfba.social -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

@scholar

"‘Ask them how many women they know trust them’ Strange sort of question to go around asking people, maybe not the soundest vetting process"

Yeah

Really

I mean, women only make up -- what is it now? -- one half of the human race?

What would they know, and who would care?

cc @ShareMySims

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

It's (almost) funny how they think they're here taking some sort of brave stand against oppression, when in reality all they're doing is telling the rest of us that they don't see women as people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Go on then, how many women you know trust you?

[–] FinchHaven@sfba.social -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@scholar

All of them

Because I trust them

Also, bye...

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

What do we think Vetting Board, does the candidate's answer meet your approval?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Ask them to read some bell hooks

I don't think putting people through a "re-education" process is going to have the results you think it will.

However, this is an important point - having certain people monopolize the security function IS a pretty dangerous security risk in itself, and it would be a far better strategy to make this a perfectly understood and non-negotiable paradigm within the group than trying to subtly psyop certain individuals who may simply be too enthusiastic for their own good.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Imagine turning "here, read this book" in to a "re-education" bogeyman to justify rejecting learning about intersectionality, in an anarchist community.

You definitely shouldn't be allowed to work security.

And thus, the mere suggestion has done its job.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Imagine turning “here, read this book”

Oh, look, it's the standard "read my fave Beardy McDeadguy's book" answer edgelords that are completely out of touch with the people they (purportedly) wish to liberate offers to those they assume to be too ideologically "impure" for their glorified counter-culture club they mistake for a political movement.

Do you seriously think the CNT-FAI was built this way? Or the movements in Chiappas, or Rojava?

bell hooks wrote her books to inform - not to be used as a way to purity test people because you don't know how to democratically normalize common-sense security measures in organizations.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Imagine framing prioritising and looking out for the safety of the already marginalised members of your group as a "purity test" bogeyman to justify rejecting learning about intersectionality, in an anarchist community.

Yeah, you definitely shouldn't be allowed do security, jfc

Also, talk about edgelord... Project much? lmfao

E: the sheer audacity to invoke Rojova of all groups to make your point against intersectionality goes to show just how motherfucking and wilfully ignorant you truly are lmmfao, but you keep opposing educating yourself, it seems to be working out really well for you.. 🙄

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Imagine encouraging members of activist groups to unilaterally POLICE the behavior of their fellow members - in an anarchist community.

Imagine being unable to bring up very real security concerns within an activist group so that the group can solve the problem in an appropriately DEMOCRATIC manner - again, in an anarchist community.

Are you TRYING to cultivate a culture of suspicion in your orgs?

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's pretty obvious the point is to get an idea of what they think they are securing, and also their personal philosophy on things.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A personal philosophy is a fine and dandy thing to have - but it's not much of a security measure to protect against the very thing OP says they are concerned about, is it now?

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 week ago

What? No it absolutely is.

People that could be viewed as an authority figure, and would "take charge", absolutely have to have a personal philosophy of advocating for equity.

Understand their motivations

Are they there out of concern, or for their ego? You need to uncover that, and not let them go unchecked while you figure that out.

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

some roles are always going to be more prone to exploitation than others, it's easier to monitor the police when you know who they are.

[–] psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm in this post and I ~~don't like it~~ (jk) completely understand.

This isn't fantasizing about an unfamiliar future. We experienced this in 2020. The Boogaloo Boys and Rittenhouse were "security". Even the allies in the CHAZ made some bad calls.

I'm one of those who would like to be a protector, but no one should trust a stranger, and that is what I am.

In my experience, it is better to silently do good from the background without recognition than to proudly stand in front where people can try to bait you into a mistake, or misrepresent your good deeds.

Security personnel should have an attitude of service, not of leadership.

[–] ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In my experience, it is better to silently do good from the background without recognition than to proudly stand in front where people can try to bait you into a mistake, or misrepresent your good deeds.

Security personnel should have an attitude of service, not of leadership.

This is how it should be, unfortunately you're in the minority, and those who refuse to acknowledge that a revolution/community/society depends on all its members working together for the benefit of everyone, rather than a hero-focused action movie led by a single all-powerful "leader", out number you by quite a bit.

Which is incredibly ironic in this specific community considering how the most basic idea of anarchism is to abolish hierarchy, yet all these men want to do is secure and maintain their position at the top of one.

ETA: this is all why it's vital to fight all oppressive systems and view how they intersect (aka intersectionality), not just capitalism, and why class reductionism is so counterproductive and even dangerous for the marginalised members of the community/society at large.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I agree. But this is a more general rule, that should be also applied to people who are eager to do ideology, social morality, politics of all kinds. (About comrades)

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

One of the most basic reasons revolutions fail is that people love to be agreed with.