Eristalis

Well, insomnia seems to do you good, that was an interesting and measured post, which is a rarity.

I think I agree with most of what you say, which is unfortunately going to make my post far more boring than yours deserves in response.

I feel similarly about Anonymous but for my cynicism about their capabilities making me perhaps a little less concerned about their lack of structure. Their actions amuse me solely because they tend to be aimed at institutions who deserve to be rattled. I don't imagine them taking Barclay's down, but it would give me a wry smile if their websites went down for a day.

Likewise disillusioned with the left (though I suspect maybe resulting from different experiences). I'm what might be called the old left - unions, environmentalism, welfare. It saddens me to see so much individualism dominate the modern left and I blame that for our lack of collective action. Far too much concern about themselves to think much about others. I'm not saying my generation were martyrs, but we got on fucking boats and sailed in front of whaling harpoons. We didn't whinge about our feelings, then throw a street party and call it activism.

Anyway, rant over. I too am old and tired, and probably far more curmudgeonly than is healthy.

So, yes, maybe structure is key, it stops any Tom, Dick, or Harry from deciding their neighbour is a fascist because he didn't give the lawnmower back and therefore is the justified recipient of violent counteraction. But, as above, I'm not sure I even trust structures anymore.

Insomnia is nasty.

I think that's less confusing. It sounded like the method was the problem. But you're saying the scale of the counter-movement ones actions are a part of is the difference?

That makes a lot more sense. So this guy's tactics (though not his politics), would have been acceptable if they were part of a larger movement?

It's of interest to me because there's been a lot of chatter about the use of violence against political adversaries at the same time as condemnation of this guy's underhand methods (which are clearly much less problematic for the victims than violence would have been), and I wondered if people were justifying it by whose side they're on, or some broader ethics.

Like if the tesseract guy had a hidden blocklist of Nazi, and right-wing groups and then DDOSed the main perpetrator, that would presumably be OK. After all, it's the sort of stuff Anonymous get up to, right? And that's generally considered fair game.

If Anonymous has shadow-blocked Barclay's and then DDOSed them, I think most here would think that was a pretty cool stunt (myself included).

So really the whole tesseract thing boils down to 'this is a left-leaning group and so anti-left action isn't welcome'.

This just reads really weird. It sounds like you're saying that physically assaulting your 'enemies' is an OK form of political action, but a hidden blocklist is a step too far. I can't quite see the ethical coherence there.

Hating on the guy because of his politics is fine, but pretending the issue is merely with his tactics whilst simultaneously condoning violence as a legitimate tactic is incongruous at best.

If I'm ever on anyone's hate list, I don't think I'm alone in saying I'd rather be clandestinely blacklisted than beaten to a pulp.

That's ridiculous. It undermines the whole principle of war crimes. For there to be a war, one place has to have been invaded by another. Since invasion by aggression is already illegal, following your logic would have us throw away all remaining war crimes, if the aggressor has already broken the law and the defender can now do whatever they want.

The Geneva Convention doesn't have a get out clause if you're the one being invaded. Civilian targets and infrastructure are off limits, invader and defender alike, because civilians often have little control over the war they're caught up in and don't deserve to be killed, starved, conscripted, detained, or otherwise denied rights because of the decision of their leaders.

This should be simple stuff. The world has gone insane.

A few dozen is smaller than millions. It's not minimising, its maths.

I've never heard anyone attempt to debate whether trans people exist, so the meme seems a bit weird.

The 'debate' seems to fall into two camps. Those who question the relationship to biological sex (sports, restrooms, prisons, etc), and those who label all such people as 'deviant' in some way (usually on pseudo-religious grounds or some other spurious right-wing nonsense).

It's pointless conflating the two, they're completely different debates for completely different reason with completely different (often vehemently opposed) groups. And it's pointless pretending either are denying trans people's existence.

If you've got a set of negative beliefs you need to fight against in society you need to actually address those beliefs, not some belief that sounds bad but nobody actually has.

It's not a distraction from the class warfare though. It is the class warfare. The wars, plagues, and destitution are the class warfare.

The sexual exploits of that class are a minor (if appalling) sideline. It affected dozens of young women. And, again, my deepest sympathies to them, but dozens is not millions. The wholesale massacre of an entire nation is not a 'distraction' from a sex scandal. The sex scandal is a distraction from the wholesale massacre of a nation.

The mass exploitation of the poor is the most noteworthy feature of the ruling class. Calling them the Epstein class just makes them sound like their main crime is the exploitation of a few dozen teenagers. Their main crime is the complicity in the massacre and starvation of thousands of children, the impoverishment of millions more.

It's insane that people seriously think this.

Millions of people have been killed, and millions of dollars have been extracted from the poor. There's a genocide actively taking place. Anthropogenic climate change is literally an existential risk. 150 million children are at risk of starvation.

These thing pre-date Epstein, have nothing to do with Epstein, and (with the greatest sympathy to his victims), are way more important than Epstein.

I honestly would rather they burnt the files so the issue could stop taking up news feeds that should be focusing on the far, far more extensive human suffering caused by the aforementioned wars, plagues, and destitution, which, far from being g a manufactured distraction are absolutely fundamental features of Neo-liberal economies.

I agree. I was pointing out that (even if perhaps inadvertently), your post just ends up guilting people who don't do enough activism instead. It turns, not on the problem (reducing carbon emissions), but on your comrades (those who share your concern, but disagree about how best to achieve it).

The responses blaming individuals don't seem to be exculpating corporations. They're just adding a dimension they felt was missing.

Solidarity is about accepting into the fold anyone who agrees with a broad aim and working toward that end.

So anyone concerned about our impact on the planet can work together to minimise it. Some by campaigning to reduce consumption, some by campaigning against corporate overreach, some by campaigning for political parties who have better agendas. And each campaign supports and nurtures the other.

What we get instead are endless (and often furious) arguments between each campaign about how they've got it wrong and their approach will never work.

I suppose in the vein of "the one thing I don't tolerate is intolerance", I'd say the one thing I will always say isn't going to work is telling every other well-meaning activist that their campaign isn't going to work.

(The obvious caveat here is determining 'well-meaning', but hey, no system is perfect)

Yep. Solidarity, collectivism.

Which presumably is why the left wing spends 100% of it's time and energy on purity tests, cancelling, essentailist identity politics, and knee-jerk tribalism...

... classic solidarity-building. We should have this problem sorted in no time.

I don’t understand this argument. On the one had you have sympathy for the average car user who hasn’t the time or resources to struggle with poor transport infrastructure and don’t necessarily have the resources to make preventative purchasing decisions, but then, on the other had you say

Needing to put in the political struggle to take on the corporate interests… takes effort that deviates from your normal life

You don’t seem to have avoided the responsibility being laid at the individual at all. You’ve kept it firmly in the same place. All you’ve done is allowed those individuals to keep their materialistic lifestyle because “It’s OK, I’m an ‘activist’”.

Activism, for most people, is not sacrifice. Its a jolly good day out with a cool social group, sometimes there's even free music, circus acts, the works. You get to waive a flag, and everyone congratulates you on what an amazing person you are.

What's properly amazing is taking a slightly less well-paying job because it's on a bus route, or not going out twice a week so you can afford organic cotton instead of polyester, or avoiding that deal trip to Tibet to meditate with monks to save fuel. Zero social credit, zero visibility.

And if these big companies have the economic system so stitched up that individual choices barely matter, then what on earth makes you think they won't have the political system similarly stitched up so that individual activism doesn't make a difference either?

What losses in revenue? As I said earlier, deaths an hospitalisations were overwhelmingly in older age brackets and poorer neighbourhoods. Companies were compensated for closures, and able to profit enormously from the 'supply chain problems' by price gouging. They made a fortune on the vaccine itself, not to mention the increase in future products off the back of the RNA research. What losses in revenue were on the horizon?

Health insurance costs in America have risen by over 130%, so there’s no evidence of insurance companies offering flu shots to save money, they just demand more premium to cover it.

Far more likely, in my view, is that taking regular vaccines has become a marketable product (for various reasons) which insurance companies have jumped on. Offer the shot, up the premium to cover it (plus a healthy profit). It simple market expansion.

If there’s a market (or one can be fabricated), then there’s a product to sell. If you can add a flu shot, up the premium to cover it, and not lose customers, then it makes sense to do so. Doesn’t have any bearing on whether it works. Same metric would apply to a medicine which did absolutely nothing whatsoever. As long as advertising it justified a rise in premiums larger than the cost of it, and customers don’t jump ship.

This is want I mean by comfortable narratives around medicine. If literally any other industry had added a service to their product, you'd assume it was simply something they thought they could market, and probably be suspicious that it was any use at all. But when a medical company adds a service (and charges more for it) people have to do this mental gymnastics to make the company's actions all for the best in the end.