Getting personal

Bloody 'ell...

*

Well it started with Maia having a bit of a rant about an employer who wouldn't allow a union to hold a meeting on the work premises. She said (sic) "Bosses are theiving parasite dogs, thieving and parasiting is how capitalism works. "

*

Now setting aside that this is language that was used in Maoist China, the sort used when Red Guards were lynching people. Also setting aside the second half of that sentence, which is a simplistic view of capitalism. The first half of the sentence is vile bigotry. It is akin to saying "Black people are thieves, Jews are parasites, homosexuals are child molesters". Why? Because it assumes all managers are thieves and parasites. Charming really. Some on the left might say "you can't help your race, sex, sexuality, but you can avoid being a boss". Well yes, that's the excuse given by those defending what Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all the other bloodthirsty socialists did. By saying this, she's saying that plenty of people I know, including family and friends are (sic) "theiving parasite dogs". Now she has said she means "employers", which makes it ok apparently.

*

Now Maia can be a Marxist as much as she likes (though she says she is not, which is a bit like saying the leader of the BNP isn't a Nazi or Rodney Hide isn't a libertarian or the ocean isn't made of water because there are other things floating in it), she's not a Marxist-Leninist (she hasn't read Lenin) she says, although she uses the language and says things like "Despite all these reservations, the Americans of the 1940s and 1950s I most admire were all in the Communist party." and then "There are two acceptable answer to the question 'Are you now or have you ever been?': 'Yes' or 'fuck off I'm not telling you'." liking Che Guevara the man who said he would have fired the Soviet missiles into the US from Cuba had they been under his control (so she likes a warmongerer, nuclear one no less!) and said Cuba should model itself on North Korea. It's her right to express her views supporting authoritarian politics. Occasionally I agree with her, like here, here, here and here. More often than not I disagree, but this isn't the point.

*

Clint Heine and James both disagreed and said this. Now setting aside whether she is a bludger or not (I have no idea myself), clearly they were taking the piss out of her in a very intimate way, given they think she is nuts. Now I find her comment about bosses to be vile, and I find her almost complete insensitivity to the totalitarian nightmare of communism (and those who supported it) to be inexplicable, but one of her big issues is rape. Rightly so, rape is an abomination, as are all other forms of initiated violence. I am certain both Clint Heine and James agree - it's part of their politics. Some on the left will refuse to believe that, and that is more a reflection of their own bigotry than anything else. Maia has since said "" To talk of 'fixing' a woman with a sexual act and ignore her desires is to threaten rape. I'm aware that James, and Clint had no intention of taking any action, that discussion of sexual violence is just words to them. But the effect, and the intention, is to police women's behaviour, with threats about what will happen if we don't conform." I don't believe the intention IS to "police women's behaviour", I believe if a male had said something similar there could also have made a sexual reference, and there is no intention to use force.

*

Unfortunately, for those imbibing on structuralist leftwing post-modernist politics, it is difficult to believe that there are people who do think that people should be left to do as they like, as long as they don't use violence or fraud against others. They believe the world is set up for men to run everything and to trivialise rape or encourage it. Funnily enough most men I know despise rape, because it IS violence, and the spinoff are women who fear men, and the extremists who apply bigotry to men as a result. The same bigotry they wouldn't tolerate towards women. There are rapists, men who want to commit rape or trivialise it - that's about as funny as trivialising murder or assault more generally.

*

Notwithstanding that, given her sensitivity to rape, it wasn't clever and playing the ball instead of the woman isn't something I do unless someone directly advocates violence. She wasn't being threatened with rape - she was constructing that from insults, because she assumed that was where they were coming from. She assumed it was, it wasn't intended to be. My initial response was that it was, and i was wrong. Threatening violence to solve political problems is wrong, throwing insults her way in such an intimate manner is wrong as well - but let's not forget that some of Maia's heroes are advocates of violence too.

*

In conclusion yes the two of them (Clint and James) were being childish, and didn't advance the core argument anywhere by taking the piss (in a way that was easily too intimate), but fueled the fires of others on the left and right. However, it doesn't excuse the McCarthyist nonsense in response (calling for a google bomb). Just because Maia chooses to be anonymous and Clint Heine doesn't does not mean that there should be a Maoist witchhunt. If she or others embark on this then frankly it shows how vindictive and abusive THEY are. I believe he did not threaten with violence, to be tried by a court of bloggers for doing so is almost as abusive and vile as anyone who DOES threaten with violence.

*

By the way, if Maia, Idiot Savant and others on the left think it is only women who get threatened online they should open their eyes.

*

I've had the following on mine:

".Hope some muslim brother blows you up in suicide bombing in London to thank you for your support of muslim cause. " as one example. I guess that's not important if you don't live in London, and think of war and terror as some far over event that is the fault of Bush and Blair - it's great comfort to those of us who daily know that we are considered legitimate targets. Initiating violence is wrong, and I have yet to see evidence that any on the libertarian "right" of the NZ blogosphere believe otherwise.

*

There should be no political argument that one or several people initiating violence against other individuals is wrong - but then, there is.