222
Being able to recognise, and willing to act on red flags WITHIN a community or organisation is vital to its success
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.. 🙄
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.