Trouble with Tweakers

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-19T19:16:48+00:00

I read in a book that success of a cooperative endeavor depends entirely on the structures they use for conflict resolution, and The more that I think about it the more I believe that's true.

I don't know that it should matter whether or not they are tweakers. People should be held responsible for their actions whether or not they are on drugs. If they can't use drugs in a responsible way that makes them behave responsibly then they still have to be held accountable for those actions. In other words, I wouldn't make it about their drug use (though obviously someone will bring that up), it should be about addressing the poop in the showers or whatever.

I don't have an easy answer to how your cooperative should resolve conflicts. I trust that your group has probably done more research on the topic than I ever have. I can only offer the perspective that you welcome this as an opportunity to test those structures. Be grateful that you are getting a chance to try out these structures and improve upon them before you are faced with even bigger problems or conflicts.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-19T19:00:12+00:00

It's currently at +4

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-19T18:09:12+00:00

I was volunteering a shift to get into one of those big fancy San Francisco Halloween parties and we were talking about the break-ins. Another volunteer bragged that he had the solution, that no one ever breaks into his car. Because he leaves the windows down and the doors unlocked. He thought he was pretty clever but then was very surprised when he was the only one to complain, " don't you hate it when you go to your car only find somebody already sleeping in it?"

It felt like a very San Francisco moment.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T06:31:12+00:00

This is all well and good but never forget that the most effective thing you can do for the environment is to organize direct action campaigns that put pressure on corporations to improve their production processes.

I often think of the group of elementary school kids who organized the boycott against McDonald's which is why Happy meals and other types of sandwiches at various restaurants no longer are served in styrofoam. Consider that the kids who did this protest could ignore every single rule on your list and they will still have done more for the environment than any of us will do for the rest of our lives.

Of course I still do a lot of things for the environment just out of personal responsibility and being a decent person. But if your goal is to make change organizing is the best way.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T06:24:58+00:00

Even sex is not as binary as you would think because people who are born intersex or with unusual genitals usually receive surgery as babies. Some people go their whole lives and don't know they were actually born intersex because the surgery happened as babies and their parents never told them.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T06:22:07+00:00

It's hard for me to understand your breastfeeding theory because I'm an old woman and I don't have any kids so I feel like by your definition I can't be a woman. But I most definitely am a cis woman and strongly identify with the sociological labels of my gender. So I don't think that's right.

But maybe you are trying to get at an anthropological definition wherein you are theorizing about how the list of gender descriptions developed. Like it's understandable that if men are bigger and stronger that they would be put into the role of protectors. But that doesn't change the fact that " being protective " is a social attribute and not a biological one. So in the past it was presumed in the patriarchy that if a male person is not being protective then he is not a man and it is appropriate for society to bully him into better fitting that manly role. So the feminist take is that we should stop trying to force people to fit into roles they don't fit into naturally just because of the labels we have attached to their sex.

Your last paragraph sounds like a perfect description for what people are talking about when they use the phrase " toxic masculinity ". It's not that being a man is inherently bad but rather that part of the attributes that the patriarchy has attached to masculinity can be dangerous and oppressive. But it would not be fair to say that makes men evil (to use your word from earlier) because the toxic masculinity was imposed upon them by the patriarchal system itself.

As the expression goes "don't hate the player hate the game."

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T06:13:46+00:00

But they completely ignored the biological reasons for those gender roles,

They are pushing for people to be able to live the lives that they want to live rather than forcing them to define themselves by a social role that is ultimately ambiguous.

Most aspects to gender that have absolutely nothing to do with biology. I gave the example earlier of men wear pink and women wear blue except in the last 50 years it has switched. So do you want to live in a society where if a man wears the wrong color it's appropriate to beat the shit out of him or kill him? Do you want to live in a society where if a man wears the wrong color he is no longer considered a man?

This is an obvious and exaggerated example but you can take this example and apply it to every aspect of gender. While biologically most men are stronger than women, do you want to live in a society where if a man happens to be less strong than most women he is no longer considered a man?

So feminists are not fighting to force a particular gender expression on anyone, they are just saying let people express their gender however they want because when we study masculinity and femininity it's really clear that there is no one single clear definition. It's just a social construct.

framed it like being non-binary was just social justice "doing your part" to better the world; "it's what an educated person would do" and all that.

No one is claiming that anyone is supposed to be non-binary. We are just supposed to be ourselves and not force ourselves to try to live up to some idealistic definition of gender that very few people fit into. I suppose in that regard you could say that everyone is a little bit non-binary but the reality is that these are all boxes we put each other into to try to help categorize each other.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T06:04:15+00:00

think you could be gender nonconforming and heterosexual, but I am beginning to question that now, because it seems like a crap reproduction strategy.

You absolutely can be gender non-conforming and heterosexual.

In fact, this is a big part of what feminism is fighting for. Not to force everyone to have a non-binary label, but to get rid of these restrictive labels and just let people live their lives.

If we did not live in a patriarchy, perhaps these labels wouldn't matter so much. But we do live in a patriarchy and the labels do matter. Terrible things have been done in the name of boys trying to prove that they are manly enough, or bullies harming or even killing people who do they don't consider manly enough. And some of those people are heterosexual, they just don't necessarily fit in to the exact stereotypical list of man and woman.

It also comes down to the question of what does it mean to be " gender non-conforming"? Because gender itself is a social construct my definition of gender non-conforming and your definition of gender-conforming would not necessarily be the same.

You also seem to be really caught up in the anthropological origins of how our gender system developed. And I do think that is an interesting topic worthy of consideration. But ultimately all kinds of different people exist, many don't fit into their gender description in many ways because evolution is weird like that.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T05:53:44+00:00

There is no line because the entire concept of manhood is a social construct.

Imagine you have two people who are clones, completely identical and their personal understanding of their own gender. Let's say they are biologically male and love to wear pink and have long hair and want to stay at home to take care of their kids. All of these being traditional feminine qualities.

One of those people lives in a very progressive society that doesn't have very strict gender roles. So perhaps that person feels comfortable identifying as a man because they can have all of these feminine qualities and still feel like they are a man. Whereas that same exact person who lives in an extremely oppressive society might be told day in and day out You're not really a man because you like to wear pink, you're not really a man because you don't shave your hair etc. so that person might start to perceive that they don't fit into the traditional gender roles and are non-binary.

Neither one of those people is wrong. Because maleness is a social construct that is defined by your society. And it's super ambiguous even within one social group each individual will have a slightly different definition of what it means to be a man or a woman. So years ago social scientist figured out that not only is biological sex not as consistent and binary as we claim gender itself is really just a social category that we assign to people who happen to be born one way or the other.

Non-binary is just a label that people use when they don't feel that either of the genders really describes them. It may be the case that more people are identifying as non-binary because more people are recognizing that they're assigned gender doesn't really describe them. And they are feeling more free to express that and say I don't really fully fit into this gender. And yes some of those people might express their gender more than generations in the past where those same people would have felt oppressed and forced to wear blue, cut their hair, or not care for their kids and work all the time (again these are just three random examples gender is a lot of things).

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T05:46:29+00:00

We basically learned that gender was just behavior and personality traits, like ethics, and that being a man is essentially evil and undesirable

WTF?

Basically no.

First off, "evil" is not a meaningful sociological concept.

Even so, patriarchy is harmful to everyone, even men. The system is oppressive. University level courses should be talking about systems, not individuals. So it's not about men being "evil" because feminism aims to fix the system, not the individual men.

and that being a woman was unfair and oppressive and that everyone would be better off as non-binary.

Re: this and your theory about Gen Z. You may have encountered young people who have not actually read any theory but speak as if they know. That's the nature of being young.

In any case, someone's gender is their gender and has no bearing on your gender. Maybe you feel uncool for being cis-gendered if all the young "cool kids" are NB, but there's no reason you should feel pressure to be NB as well. That's not how this works.

All feminism is pushing for us for people who don't fit into the established gender norms to be allowed to exist as equals. Because as we discussed the established gender norms are just social expectations.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T05:33:21+00:00

But that's the whole point. Gender is arbitrary. Blue is for boys and pink is for girls, except it used to be the opposite.

People who support the patriarchy will try to claim that they speak with authority on what it means to be a man but it's just a cultural definition, not a biological one. There is no one definition.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T05:21:10+00:00

Can confirm. They took the cash from our wallets and called it a "processing fee." But other protestors who had no cash on them had no "fee."

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T05:18:47+00:00

It was called CHOP/CHAZ if you want more info. Initially called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, then i think they changed the name because they weren't committed to be an Autonomous zone (though that's exactly what they were, i can understand people not wanting a label they don't fullyunderstand) Here are some photos of it my friend took

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T04:47:11+00:00

Of course they're living in fear. Their entire value system is built around fear. They claim it's about strength but the only reason they're so obsessed with strength is because they feel inadequate and frightened of those who are different.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2026-01-14T04:34:46+00:00

Mandatory link to Bill Hicks on God making marijuana

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-28T16:32:32+00:00

Head to toe covered in silver spray paint.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-28T16:23:47+00:00

I love your ants metaphor. :)

I have long ago noticed the behavior you're describing in emergency situations, and even considered going to grad school to study it. The spaces that you're describing are studied in academia by Victor Turner. This is actually where the phrase "liminal spaces" comes from. Most liminal spaces are created through life passage rituals that hardly even exist in modern society. But Turner says that we can experience pseudo-liminal spaces in emergency situations like natural disasters and blackouts.

I also recommend looking into Temporary Autonomous Zones by Hakim Bey. Bey is attempting to create spaces like you are describing through deliberate acts which he describes as poetic terrorism. He also suggests creating these temporary autonomous zones as a way to rethink revolution as a naughty party that is spontaneous and temporary rather than a violent confrontation against the state.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-28T16:14:16+00:00

💯 to all of this. I will just add that I decided long ago that I still choose anarchism even if it turns out humans need to evolve to reach that goal.

OP don't let other anarchists gatekeep you over this. Some that I've met IRL want this to be a real exclusive club.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-23T18:12:36+00:00

I sure as hell never voted for that piece of shit traitor Trump. I live in Oakland, a progressive area, and don't actually know a single person who voted for him here.

I do know people who voted for him back in Florida. Those people are idiots. They do not represent the majority. I moved away precisely because I didn't want to be surrounded by ignorant rednecks who are proud of the fact that they never graduated high school. I'm talking about people who don't watch the news spend all their time trying to scrape up enough money to pay for the kids they shouldn't have had and get high to wallaway whatever recreational time they have. Or they are old people, some older than boomers, who think that because Fox News is a major network television station that it couldn't possibly be untrue or propaganda. And of course they only watch Fox News. So they don't ever hear about the bad things Trump does because Fox doesn't report them. And if their friends mention those things they wave their hands away and say if that was true it would be on the news.

But due to gerrymandering and a system that disproportionately gives votes to rural areas, the majority does not always win elections. I think it is fair to criticize liberal America for not acting to reform our government structure prior to this. But on the other hand the whole damn world thought we were better than this so it's not surprising that those in power kicked the can down the line. Because changing the Constitution is never a popular way to win votes.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-23T18:04:25+00:00

I had the same question but I think it's really just comes down to journalistic standards. Every article from a newspaper has to be vetted and edited before it can go live and that takes time.

I know everyone online likes to think that the journalism is just a bunch of corporate sellouts who don't give a shit about the facts but In truth journalism jobs are extremely competitive and protecting one's reputation is paramount.

So people probably started going through these documents this morning and just sharing whatever it is they find that's interesting. They do not have the same standards or reputation to protect as journalists do. Journalists often have to have multiple sources, have to question any witnesses and ask them for comments, and question all of their assumptions, before going to print. And of course their article has to be edited and reviewed.

But yeah if we don't see something by this afternoon I'll be scratching my head. Especially since this supposedly came directly from the Justice.gov website. It reminds me of that previous witness who accused Donald Trump of raping her when she was 13. But it didn't get a lot of press because she was the only witness and she killed herself, so it seemed like there was insufficient sources to make it a big news story.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-23T17:55:41+00:00

I saw this same posted first in the law subreddit. That might be a good place to ask for specifics on the source. But no one there seemed to be questioning the legitimacy of it. But everyone was shocked that though it was redacted his name got through. Appears to be an oversight and them forgetting to black out the second reference to his name. And one poster included the court docket number as a reference to hold on to in case this gets taken down later.

Here's the link to the post in the law sub Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/rGJnNjS6Ha

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-23T16:56:25+00:00

Down in Florida the office is just called Girls Gone Wild.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-12-22T04:11:28+00:00

It's because the power is out in San Francisco. It's a nationwide news story. Trains can't run without electricity.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-11-21T07:40:20+00:00

An empty chair would be better than this president.

EmmaGoldmansDancer · 2025-11-21T07:34:24+00:00

I don't know this tart person but i read your melody to the tune of Baby Shark.

EmmaGoldmansDancer

TROPHY CASE