this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
219 points (96.2% liked)

Flippanarchy

620 readers
381 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 [email protected]

Rules

  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. 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 8 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
219
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 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
37 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 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day 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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

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)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 hours 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

@scholar

All of them

Because I trust them

Also, bye...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours 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)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Strange sort of question to go around asking people

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 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)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 hours ago (2 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.”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours 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!

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago (1 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.
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day 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?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day 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."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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. 😊

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.. 🙄

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day 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?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day 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?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day 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)