This is a follow up; I've gone back and forth on this issue.
There's no doubt that a small group of anarchists will never be seen positively protesting the likes of the Tory elite and it's creepy darlings.
However reading this has made me think twice. I rewrote my original post as initially I was less forgiving to the Moggspring. While I don't want to see anyone's kids bullied or victimised or used as political capital, there are some mitigating issues here.
Firstly, it transpires that the protest was announced a few weeks ahead of time. So Mogg knew what was going to be happening. He was also clearly ok with being present - it, as he has gone on to say, was not something he felt bothered by.
Secondly, apparently, he brought his kids out during the protest. So not only did he not take them seriously, he obviusly didn't think his kids would either, nor that they would be in any danger (they weren't). Whether or not you agree with the actions taken, it's fairly clear and reasonable to suggest the experience hasn't damaged them. Good.
Mogg doesn't take this stuff seriously - and that's a problem. In order to defeat people like him - and we must - he must be made to feel the opposition constitutes a legitimate threat. I don't mean in terms of life and limb, to be clear. That he doesn't speaks to the arrogance of power, as reinforced by the media. Class War aren't there to be seen as positive by those gazing from the Overton Window. They are there to speak truth to power: to show that working class people are real, frustrated, and exploited. They demonstrated this by, rather benignly, addressing Mogg's nanny.
A fucking nanny. Clearly neither he nor his wife are up to the job of raising the six children they choose to have - three times as many as he allows those protesting him to have. Think about that.
This poor woman has worked for the Moggs for half a century. She's been there to wipe their bottoms, clean their bibs, and kiss the various 'its' the prodigy of the rich and powerful endure in their many mansions. Does she get treated well for this? We don't know she wasn't prepared - unsurprisingly, in front of her lord and master - to disclose her wage. But is it unreasonable to assume it would have been particularly generous given her station and her employer's belief in a vicious social hierarchy.
Regardless, the existence of this structure - of nannies and maids and butlers - is something that must die. It is a vile anachronism. No one should serve others in this fashion. No one should have 'betters', or lords and masters. This is dehumanising and degrading to the human spirit.
So, when it comes to the kids, their daddy is not a nice man.
Whether or not you agree with saying this, however calmly and non threateningly, to his children, whom he has chosen to wheel out (maybe even cynically), the fact remains. This is a truth they will have to rationalise at some point in their undoubtedly hyper-privileged lives. Their father (and he has a daughter) believes women should never be allowed abortions, even if they are victims of rape!
Of course tender age kids shouldn't have to ponder such realities as rape, but the truth is their father is a willing supporter of policies that are not just 'not nice' but actively destructive. He has a hand in the suicides of many, the suffering of thousands, and the deliberate starvation of many working class children throughout Britain. He deliberately and knowingly dismisses this through the tools of his class and privilege. That is, his world view is an artifice of class and power and that is why he must be brought down.
And rthat's before we address his headbanging pro-Empire worldview that would see the country burn. A site his kids will get to see from their mansion window possibly quite soon. His insane wrecking cabal of imperialists are happy to sell the rest of us down the river by any means possible to return us to a time that even time forgot. A collapsed economy in the name of King and Country.
If people think his children should be protected from the mean old man mildly insulting their father, then how are they going to feel when the revolution comes! When they lose their mansions and their father's wealth is expropriated and returned to the people?
Perhaps that's not likely to happen until well beyond the time their own kids are insulted by the grandkids of Ian Bone and Class War, but it must happen.
That doesn't mean they should be sent to the Tower, guillotine, or some other ghastly fate. No, they are human beings and should enjoy the same rights and provileges as the rest of us: food, shelter, clothing, health, fellowship and aspiration.
Just no more than you or I.
Sunday, 16 September 2018
Friday, 14 September 2018
Your Daddy's Not A Nice Man!
Moggy, moggy, moggy....it's a rich man's world!
The sun rises and a group of protesters, called Class War, descend upon the (latest) home of the bewilderingly out of touch Jacob Rees Mogg. A man who thinks that rape should be rewarded with further brutality: the curtailment of women's rights is simply another assault the victim must endure. A man who thinks the existence of foodbanks - a symptom of cruelty and state created deprivation - is uplifting; thus he washes his soul in the misery he inflicts on others. The UnAmerican Psycho.
A man who thinks the Bedroom Tax is a carefully calibrated policy - yes, calibrated to fuck up the lives of many for no appreciable gain, such that they have to lie about the existence of a 'spare room subsidy' to mechanically justify its workings. A policy of ideology, not the remotest shred of pragmatism.
This man is abhorrent. His existence is an unwelcome counter productive anachronism supported, I would think, by a large business elite within his constituency. The mire from which this weed sprouts doing harm in god's name and, probably, god's accent. The lord, after all, is a plum-toned vicar from Hobbitonshire on the Wold after all. Heaven has no spare room subsidy.
So it's a fucking huge shame that, by allowing one idiot to address his kids, the points they had to make were lost. Inevitably the media were going to focus on that. Confronting Mogg is already an uphill battle in the eyes of the right wing media (which is 99% of the media).
Not a smart move.
But here's the thing. What they said was not untrue.
"Your daddy's not a nice man!"
Look. This is reality. Their father isn't a nice man. That's the truth. The real issue that should be discussed is the bizarre life this creature leads. He has a nanny for fuck's sake. His children are named as if they were Latin pronouns or adverbs. He doesn't live in the real world. He is functionally and genetically incapable of understanding our lives. How can he?
But
"Your daddy's not a nice man!"
Is not a good look. Like it or not, we live in the age of optics. One of the reasons Mogg does so well (ugh) is that he cultivates a privilege-cushioned posture of calmness. Something that's a lot easier to do when your own kids aren't starving.
That's the problem with the Class War debacle. There is a valid message that could have been put forward, that could even have involved, albeit indirectly, his kids without actually...involving his kids. That is: the Wee Moggs aren't going to sleeping on empty stomachs or waiting for a nutritionally bereft foodbank parcel. Their parents aren't going to be the ones struggling with the institutionally wicked deliberate chaos of Universal Credit.
They are not going to be on the sharp end of their father's policies.
"Your daddy's not a nice man!"
So instead of exposing the ridiculousness of this artificial human's lifestyle by throwing it into stark relief compared to the lives of the poorest, Class War resort to unfortunate type. They act like children who've discovered swear words for the first time. That's a shame because some of them are well read and should know better. The underdogs went for the dishonourable approach and the inevitable happened. What they could have done is what they did later focussing on Mogg's nanny and asking whether she gets paid a decent wage. Who knows if she does.
So the nation's kids will again go to sleep on empty stomachs, in poverty, and in crisis, all so the incredibly advantaged and privileged children of people who happen to have won life's lottery can have their feelings hurt. There is something desperately wrong here. None of this should have to be happening at all. But this horror persists because of stupid actions on the part of those opposing this system. We agree this system is intrinsically awful and cannot be reformed, but there is a journey to get past it and that journey is made steeper when you behave like a fool.
There should be no Jacob Rees Mogg's in this world. That should be the goal; no one should have this kind of power and privilege, look at what it does. I think Mogg is a mutant; a twisted product of radioactive society. Finance and privilege breed the dogs of capitalist war. For the good of us all they need to be taken down, their power de constructed and their wealth expropriated to be shared where it belongs - to all of us.
The sun rises and a group of protesters, called Class War, descend upon the (latest) home of the bewilderingly out of touch Jacob Rees Mogg. A man who thinks that rape should be rewarded with further brutality: the curtailment of women's rights is simply another assault the victim must endure. A man who thinks the existence of foodbanks - a symptom of cruelty and state created deprivation - is uplifting; thus he washes his soul in the misery he inflicts on others. The UnAmerican Psycho.
A man who thinks the Bedroom Tax is a carefully calibrated policy - yes, calibrated to fuck up the lives of many for no appreciable gain, such that they have to lie about the existence of a 'spare room subsidy' to mechanically justify its workings. A policy of ideology, not the remotest shred of pragmatism.
This man is abhorrent. His existence is an unwelcome counter productive anachronism supported, I would think, by a large business elite within his constituency. The mire from which this weed sprouts doing harm in god's name and, probably, god's accent. The lord, after all, is a plum-toned vicar from Hobbitonshire on the Wold after all. Heaven has no spare room subsidy.
So it's a fucking huge shame that, by allowing one idiot to address his kids, the points they had to make were lost. Inevitably the media were going to focus on that. Confronting Mogg is already an uphill battle in the eyes of the right wing media (which is 99% of the media).
Not a smart move.
But here's the thing. What they said was not untrue.
"Your daddy's not a nice man!"
Look. This is reality. Their father isn't a nice man. That's the truth. The real issue that should be discussed is the bizarre life this creature leads. He has a nanny for fuck's sake. His children are named as if they were Latin pronouns or adverbs. He doesn't live in the real world. He is functionally and genetically incapable of understanding our lives. How can he?
But
"Your daddy's not a nice man!"
Is not a good look. Like it or not, we live in the age of optics. One of the reasons Mogg does so well (ugh) is that he cultivates a privilege-cushioned posture of calmness. Something that's a lot easier to do when your own kids aren't starving.
That's the problem with the Class War debacle. There is a valid message that could have been put forward, that could even have involved, albeit indirectly, his kids without actually...involving his kids. That is: the Wee Moggs aren't going to sleeping on empty stomachs or waiting for a nutritionally bereft foodbank parcel. Their parents aren't going to be the ones struggling with the institutionally wicked deliberate chaos of Universal Credit.
They are not going to be on the sharp end of their father's policies.
"Your daddy's not a nice man!"
So instead of exposing the ridiculousness of this artificial human's lifestyle by throwing it into stark relief compared to the lives of the poorest, Class War resort to unfortunate type. They act like children who've discovered swear words for the first time. That's a shame because some of them are well read and should know better. The underdogs went for the dishonourable approach and the inevitable happened. What they could have done is what they did later focussing on Mogg's nanny and asking whether she gets paid a decent wage. Who knows if she does.
So the nation's kids will again go to sleep on empty stomachs, in poverty, and in crisis, all so the incredibly advantaged and privileged children of people who happen to have won life's lottery can have their feelings hurt. There is something desperately wrong here. None of this should have to be happening at all. But this horror persists because of stupid actions on the part of those opposing this system. We agree this system is intrinsically awful and cannot be reformed, but there is a journey to get past it and that journey is made steeper when you behave like a fool.
There should be no Jacob Rees Mogg's in this world. That should be the goal; no one should have this kind of power and privilege, look at what it does. I think Mogg is a mutant; a twisted product of radioactive society. Finance and privilege breed the dogs of capitalist war. For the good of us all they need to be taken down, their power de constructed and their wealth expropriated to be shared where it belongs - to all of us.
The Unkindness of Strangers
Or, The Internet Is a Shit Show.
Let's be honest. For all the wonderful things it brings, it is a very hostile place. Especially if you have mental health problems. That's not to say everyone using it is a horrible person, but that those who are face no consequences. It's the wild west and it's run by cliques and group think. If you fall foul of a prevailing consensus, things will go downhill and never change. In fact if you appeal or seek redress you will make things worse. The cognitive dissonance of this outcome, of the reasonable decision to try and clear things up only making things worse, is particularly toxic for mental health sufferers. For all the nice things and nice people that are online, the prevalence of toxicity remains a huge problem.
I don't know how to fix this; I am not an authoritarian and we certainly can't expect the likes of government (especially one that is killing the poor) to deal with this.
I feel obliged to point out that the above isn't a cover story for my own indiscretions. It is simply a statement of my own experience dealing with many online communities; they seem to be run by awful people. Individuals with a particular ideological, political, or social attitude that cannot be shifted nor reasoned with. If you fall foul of it, no matter how innocently, you will be treated pretty shabbily, all things considered.
This isn't to lose perspective - #firstworldproblems! - it is to point out that the internet offers a unique relatively open platform for discussion on a variety of issues. For individuals like myself that suffer social isolation it can also be a lifeline. That is why I take this seriously; to take that lifeline away through poor moderation or online bullying is actually a very cruel thing to do. Unfortunately one of the things that you cannot do online is admit your vulnerabilities because, again (and again perversely), this just makes it worse. In many ways this open platform operates like kids in a playground. It's desperately sad.
This is the new reality. It may not be what we want. It may not even be what we need. But for those of us with very little, it's what we've got. If I want to talk on certain topics the internet remains the best place to go. I don't have the opportunity to talk politics in real life. Yet when I try and do so online I have to navigate an invisible minefield of etiquette and digital mores that, if communication isn't your strong point, can trip you up. A box of text becomes a very different proposition than full human communication with its inflections, body language and tonalities. Something vital is lost in the translation between typing and sending, something that doesn't appear on screen.
For people who struggle to communicate well, perhaps if they are, like me neuro diverse, this becomes very difficult. People read what you have written as if it was something else and you will not understand why. It is as if you had written in a peculiar language that, to you, was as normal and clear as anything. Someone takes exception to a message that you felt was clearly written or well intended and that's where the trouble starts...
Because the internet is unforgiving. People's reactions will instantly redline. They will assume the worst and offer no charity. Benefit of the doubt doesn't exist online. If you fall foul of the moderation, then you will be excommunicated as if you'd punched the vicar in the face and pissed in the font. It is a ridiculous way to respond, it would never happen off line and for that reason I believe it to be unhealthy. In fact sa I type this I find myself assuming that whoever's reading this could be thinking "yeah, right...what did you say, what did you do?" Because of course I couldn't be saying this without being guilty of something, of breaking some forum rules. But that's the point, it can and does happen. It's toxic and it ought to be addressed. Unfortunately the only real solution is for these communities to stand up and demand better of themselves. It's especially sad when it happens to progressive communities.
PS: hopefully the comments section is less onerous now, if people want to reply. Thanks
Let's be honest. For all the wonderful things it brings, it is a very hostile place. Especially if you have mental health problems. That's not to say everyone using it is a horrible person, but that those who are face no consequences. It's the wild west and it's run by cliques and group think. If you fall foul of a prevailing consensus, things will go downhill and never change. In fact if you appeal or seek redress you will make things worse. The cognitive dissonance of this outcome, of the reasonable decision to try and clear things up only making things worse, is particularly toxic for mental health sufferers. For all the nice things and nice people that are online, the prevalence of toxicity remains a huge problem.
I don't know how to fix this; I am not an authoritarian and we certainly can't expect the likes of government (especially one that is killing the poor) to deal with this.
I feel obliged to point out that the above isn't a cover story for my own indiscretions. It is simply a statement of my own experience dealing with many online communities; they seem to be run by awful people. Individuals with a particular ideological, political, or social attitude that cannot be shifted nor reasoned with. If you fall foul of it, no matter how innocently, you will be treated pretty shabbily, all things considered.
This isn't to lose perspective - #firstworldproblems! - it is to point out that the internet offers a unique relatively open platform for discussion on a variety of issues. For individuals like myself that suffer social isolation it can also be a lifeline. That is why I take this seriously; to take that lifeline away through poor moderation or online bullying is actually a very cruel thing to do. Unfortunately one of the things that you cannot do online is admit your vulnerabilities because, again (and again perversely), this just makes it worse. In many ways this open platform operates like kids in a playground. It's desperately sad.
This is the new reality. It may not be what we want. It may not even be what we need. But for those of us with very little, it's what we've got. If I want to talk on certain topics the internet remains the best place to go. I don't have the opportunity to talk politics in real life. Yet when I try and do so online I have to navigate an invisible minefield of etiquette and digital mores that, if communication isn't your strong point, can trip you up. A box of text becomes a very different proposition than full human communication with its inflections, body language and tonalities. Something vital is lost in the translation between typing and sending, something that doesn't appear on screen.
For people who struggle to communicate well, perhaps if they are, like me neuro diverse, this becomes very difficult. People read what you have written as if it was something else and you will not understand why. It is as if you had written in a peculiar language that, to you, was as normal and clear as anything. Someone takes exception to a message that you felt was clearly written or well intended and that's where the trouble starts...
Because the internet is unforgiving. People's reactions will instantly redline. They will assume the worst and offer no charity. Benefit of the doubt doesn't exist online. If you fall foul of the moderation, then you will be excommunicated as if you'd punched the vicar in the face and pissed in the font. It is a ridiculous way to respond, it would never happen off line and for that reason I believe it to be unhealthy. In fact sa I type this I find myself assuming that whoever's reading this could be thinking "yeah, right...what did you say, what did you do?" Because of course I couldn't be saying this without being guilty of something, of breaking some forum rules. But that's the point, it can and does happen. It's toxic and it ought to be addressed. Unfortunately the only real solution is for these communities to stand up and demand better of themselves. It's especially sad when it happens to progressive communities.
PS: hopefully the comments section is less onerous now, if people want to reply. Thanks
Sunday, 19 August 2018
Everyday Crapitalism returns to the buses!
Bonus feature!
In other words, I got short shrift on the buses again and it's all capitalism's fault.
Sad thing is, though, I'm not wrong!
Why is it always the buses? That's easy; they are a vital public service that is still held in private ownership. Of course you could say that about any number of 'commons' - food for instance. That's why I spoke about the sight of security guards in private owned profit driven supermarkets. Folks gotta eat!
So one of the very few things I can praise First Bus for is their adopting technology to allow people to buy tickets using cards rather than coins. The problem is they have no answer when these systems go wrong, so ultimately you still need to carry coins with you because, if they machine (or your card) craps out...
This is problem number one: people need transport in a modern society. You have to go to the shops to buy food to avoid starving. You need to get to appointments to see doctors, or sign on, or whatever. Duh. Capitalism has no answer for this; if you can't pay the ferryman you don't go anywhere.
Problem number two; if you're poor these issues are amplified. This is because poverty deprives people of options and flexibility. When things go wrong authority will assert itself (problem number three, in actual fact). The driver is programmed - literally - to refuse you passage. So if the fault lies with the machine shouldn't that be the company's responsibility? In reality it'll be your responsibility. You have to offer the alternative because they sure as hell won't countenance offering you a free ride in lieu of meeting their responsibility.
So that's why I had to catch a later bus a couple of weeks ago. I didn't have the change on me.
This is the power of the capitalist; it completely undermines all progress that can be made because their need for profit trumps any reasonable alternative. I'm offering to make a payment, I have the means. Yet your systems are at fault - but I have to lose out?
That, my friends, is the nature of the authority that private property rights, a key component of capitalism (the rights over the public transport system in this case). I reject this authority because I find it cannot be justified in a decent society. It is antithetical to it's optimal functioning.
It's also unnecessary.
I wish the drivers could see that. But they aren't paid enough to have that luxury. Again, crapitalism.
In other words, I got short shrift on the buses again and it's all capitalism's fault.
Sad thing is, though, I'm not wrong!
Why is it always the buses? That's easy; they are a vital public service that is still held in private ownership. Of course you could say that about any number of 'commons' - food for instance. That's why I spoke about the sight of security guards in private owned profit driven supermarkets. Folks gotta eat!
So one of the very few things I can praise First Bus for is their adopting technology to allow people to buy tickets using cards rather than coins. The problem is they have no answer when these systems go wrong, so ultimately you still need to carry coins with you because, if they machine (or your card) craps out...
This is problem number one: people need transport in a modern society. You have to go to the shops to buy food to avoid starving. You need to get to appointments to see doctors, or sign on, or whatever. Duh. Capitalism has no answer for this; if you can't pay the ferryman you don't go anywhere.
Problem number two; if you're poor these issues are amplified. This is because poverty deprives people of options and flexibility. When things go wrong authority will assert itself (problem number three, in actual fact). The driver is programmed - literally - to refuse you passage. So if the fault lies with the machine shouldn't that be the company's responsibility? In reality it'll be your responsibility. You have to offer the alternative because they sure as hell won't countenance offering you a free ride in lieu of meeting their responsibility.
So that's why I had to catch a later bus a couple of weeks ago. I didn't have the change on me.
This is the power of the capitalist; it completely undermines all progress that can be made because their need for profit trumps any reasonable alternative. I'm offering to make a payment, I have the means. Yet your systems are at fault - but I have to lose out?
That, my friends, is the nature of the authority that private property rights, a key component of capitalism (the rights over the public transport system in this case). I reject this authority because I find it cannot be justified in a decent society. It is antithetical to it's optimal functioning.
It's also unnecessary.
I wish the drivers could see that. But they aren't paid enough to have that luxury. Again, crapitalism.
These are the Solutions on offer
I haven't heard from my advisor since March. Each time I've tried to get in touch the mail seems to mysteriously end up in her boss' inbox. Why is this? I can only assume she's dliberately passing it on, which means she doesn't want to talk to me at all. Why might this be? I cannot say.
When I first met these people, almst exactly a year ago, they seemed a refreshing change from the usual behaviour of these types of organisation. But then, they all do, at first. They'll sweet talk you to be your friend and then, sooner or later, they change. They all revert to type.
At this point the only thing they are willing to offer is something called 'Solutions'. To put it simply, and you can see from the screenshots I've taken of their paraphenalia, it's just another example of the magic thinking 'let's go on a journey' self help guru rubbish this industry peddles. It does not - cannot - address the structural issues that surround unemployment and why one might not be 'succeeding' in life. In fact it offers no definition of what one shoudl consider success beyond getting a job. Nor does it offer any realisation that simply getting a job isn't always synonymous with success - as we can see from the scale of in work poverty that now exists, baked into the system.
Here we go (click for screenshots)
I'm posting this, as I've always tried, to show what's happening in this sector. I believe this course represents courses like it across the country. There are many groups like this, especially those that are connected to whatever schemes the DWP inflicts on people. To be clear, this group are not, as far as I know. Though I'm sure claimants will be referred or 'recommended' to them when they sign on, so it matters not. They are, iirc, funded by the Lottery. This expires next year. That's what I was told. What happens then? Who knows. I'm sure there will be another cookie cutter outfit ready to step into the breach, probably funded by another iteration of the same kind of funding model, ready to offer much the same thing.
You can see their attempt to deal with mental health issues that a participant might have is a perfunctory referral to counselling. I don't believe counselling is bad and I've no idea of the quality of the people you'd see, but I can tell you that counselling is far from ideal in all situations. But this is indicative of the dismissal of mental health; just refer people to 'talking' therapies which don't require lots of moving parts just a counsellor. This is naive at best; talking things through again does not address structural problems. I know this from personal experience; the counsellor I saw 18 months ago gave up after three sessions. Gave up! She was saying I should present to Bristol council and that they would give me somewhere to live, instead of being stuck out in the sticks. Utter nonsense! As if there aren't loads of homeless people/crisis cases already, as if there isn't a massive housing crisis the council has to contend with. This is their approach; they'll sell you down the river with simplistic solutions that don't help and when you refuse, rightly, you are told YOU are the problem.
So if your problems are of a complex mental health nature, likely to be societal in nature, specifically as a result of structural poverty caused by the dominant failing economics of our age, just speak to your counsellor. Meanwhile let's do all these insipid activities like "colour personality profiling".
How insidious does that sound?
Is this really as good as it gets? I'll let you judge for yourself. I'd also appreciate if anyone out there reading this (thanks!) lets me know what they think. It'd be nice to have a dialogue about this.
Cheers.
When I first met these people, almst exactly a year ago, they seemed a refreshing change from the usual behaviour of these types of organisation. But then, they all do, at first. They'll sweet talk you to be your friend and then, sooner or later, they change. They all revert to type.
At this point the only thing they are willing to offer is something called 'Solutions'. To put it simply, and you can see from the screenshots I've taken of their paraphenalia, it's just another example of the magic thinking 'let's go on a journey' self help guru rubbish this industry peddles. It does not - cannot - address the structural issues that surround unemployment and why one might not be 'succeeding' in life. In fact it offers no definition of what one shoudl consider success beyond getting a job. Nor does it offer any realisation that simply getting a job isn't always synonymous with success - as we can see from the scale of in work poverty that now exists, baked into the system.
Here we go (click for screenshots)
I'm posting this, as I've always tried, to show what's happening in this sector. I believe this course represents courses like it across the country. There are many groups like this, especially those that are connected to whatever schemes the DWP inflicts on people. To be clear, this group are not, as far as I know. Though I'm sure claimants will be referred or 'recommended' to them when they sign on, so it matters not. They are, iirc, funded by the Lottery. This expires next year. That's what I was told. What happens then? Who knows. I'm sure there will be another cookie cutter outfit ready to step into the breach, probably funded by another iteration of the same kind of funding model, ready to offer much the same thing.
You can see their attempt to deal with mental health issues that a participant might have is a perfunctory referral to counselling. I don't believe counselling is bad and I've no idea of the quality of the people you'd see, but I can tell you that counselling is far from ideal in all situations. But this is indicative of the dismissal of mental health; just refer people to 'talking' therapies which don't require lots of moving parts just a counsellor. This is naive at best; talking things through again does not address structural problems. I know this from personal experience; the counsellor I saw 18 months ago gave up after three sessions. Gave up! She was saying I should present to Bristol council and that they would give me somewhere to live, instead of being stuck out in the sticks. Utter nonsense! As if there aren't loads of homeless people/crisis cases already, as if there isn't a massive housing crisis the council has to contend with. This is their approach; they'll sell you down the river with simplistic solutions that don't help and when you refuse, rightly, you are told YOU are the problem.
So if your problems are of a complex mental health nature, likely to be societal in nature, specifically as a result of structural poverty caused by the dominant failing economics of our age, just speak to your counsellor. Meanwhile let's do all these insipid activities like "colour personality profiling".
How insidious does that sound?
Is this really as good as it gets? I'll let you judge for yourself. I'd also appreciate if anyone out there reading this (thanks!) lets me know what they think. It'd be nice to have a dialogue about this.
Cheers.
Tuesday, 24 July 2018
Everyday Crapitalism Goes to the Library
Last week I went to the library for the first time in ages. Nothing terribly significant about that, I just tend not to bother these days. There stock is limited thanks to cuts. That they are open at all is however impressive, and so I support libraries in principle. I've also spent the first half of the year buying a LOT of books that I am still wading through!
What I don't support are fines. This is an iniquitous principle that only serves to punish the poorest for wanting to take advantage of the vital service libraries provide. Clearly if you're wealthy enough being fined for a late return is no punishment at all and thus the idea of enforcing correct library behaviour - fair use of books - is not the issue.
But people, by which I mean me, forget to return stuff. It happens. If you're me you take a lot of books out at a time - because going to the library requires a trip into town and so not worth it for just one or two books. So if you forget to return one thing, you forget to return all. Fines increase on a daily basis, so if you don't get the opportunity to return before long you end up with a significant enough penalty that you can't take out more books.
Now a lot of people are going to have no problem with this. The argument will be that it's not fair for me to keep books and that it's my fault for not returning them.
This is true, but it isn't actually the point.
Firstly I don't seek to keep books unfairly, but - and this is key - our system tells people that's what's happening because our system can't process this any other way. It cannot accept that I haven't returned the books due to common human oversight. I don't intend for the books to be kept, but this happens in life. Why should it be an issue?
Secondly yes of course it's my fault. Why does that require scapegoating and punishment? If something gets returned late, well, quite frankly, so what? Again it's not intentional. Books get returned early (and late) all the time. People borrow, others don't. That's how this works.
These fines are also unnecessary; it's a paradigm not a requirement for the maintenance of the service. Think about it: if the library's income depended on fines and fees it would fail because the service would require people broke the rules. Does that make sense as a way to run things?
It's like the congestion charge. The stated aim - to try and reduce traffic and gridlock and ease pollution - is great. But in practise that's not really the aim because that's not what the charge actually does. Without an alternative it just penalises people who have no choice and need to make those journeys. It might encourage a few, in the same way that bedroom tax victims might actually find somewhere (if they are lucky) better suited to live. In reality those outcomes are a happy accident of a punitive principle that is applied to situations because capitalism cannot address the needs of the situation. In many cases it's the cause: we have environment-warping pollution because we have profit driven industry.
In the end it would be better to have a society where libraries - communal troves of mass media - could be accessed by members whenever. It would be better if we raised people just to be responsible and so return the book in their own good time. If they need a couple weeks longer to finish reading, so what. If they return it early, so what. We only assume people will be greedy and lazy (which is not the same as forgetful) because that's what capitalism, ultimately, teaches us. I hear this argument all the time, we need capitalism because our nature as humans is such. It's tedious and unfounded. Let's stop infantilising ourselves
What I don't support are fines. This is an iniquitous principle that only serves to punish the poorest for wanting to take advantage of the vital service libraries provide. Clearly if you're wealthy enough being fined for a late return is no punishment at all and thus the idea of enforcing correct library behaviour - fair use of books - is not the issue.
But people, by which I mean me, forget to return stuff. It happens. If you're me you take a lot of books out at a time - because going to the library requires a trip into town and so not worth it for just one or two books. So if you forget to return one thing, you forget to return all. Fines increase on a daily basis, so if you don't get the opportunity to return before long you end up with a significant enough penalty that you can't take out more books.
Now a lot of people are going to have no problem with this. The argument will be that it's not fair for me to keep books and that it's my fault for not returning them.
This is true, but it isn't actually the point.
Firstly I don't seek to keep books unfairly, but - and this is key - our system tells people that's what's happening because our system can't process this any other way. It cannot accept that I haven't returned the books due to common human oversight. I don't intend for the books to be kept, but this happens in life. Why should it be an issue?
Secondly yes of course it's my fault. Why does that require scapegoating and punishment? If something gets returned late, well, quite frankly, so what? Again it's not intentional. Books get returned early (and late) all the time. People borrow, others don't. That's how this works.
These fines are also unnecessary; it's a paradigm not a requirement for the maintenance of the service. Think about it: if the library's income depended on fines and fees it would fail because the service would require people broke the rules. Does that make sense as a way to run things?
It's like the congestion charge. The stated aim - to try and reduce traffic and gridlock and ease pollution - is great. But in practise that's not really the aim because that's not what the charge actually does. Without an alternative it just penalises people who have no choice and need to make those journeys. It might encourage a few, in the same way that bedroom tax victims might actually find somewhere (if they are lucky) better suited to live. In reality those outcomes are a happy accident of a punitive principle that is applied to situations because capitalism cannot address the needs of the situation. In many cases it's the cause: we have environment-warping pollution because we have profit driven industry.
In the end it would be better to have a society where libraries - communal troves of mass media - could be accessed by members whenever. It would be better if we raised people just to be responsible and so return the book in their own good time. If they need a couple weeks longer to finish reading, so what. If they return it early, so what. We only assume people will be greedy and lazy (which is not the same as forgetful) because that's what capitalism, ultimately, teaches us. I hear this argument all the time, we need capitalism because our nature as humans is such. It's tedious and unfounded. Let's stop infantilising ourselves
Friday, 6 July 2018
Another Pointless DWP Interview
Which, truth to tell, has left me angry and upset. I don't need wankers from the DWP to feel bad about my life. I have plenty of signs all around me to remind me of how far short I've fallen of the accepted standards. I'm not marriyoued, I don't own a nice home, and I don't have a successful career. I certainly don't need to be probed - with the same fucking questions - by the DWP again.
Why do they ask me how long I've been claiming? They have this information in front of them. they know this. Yet every time they ask me this; they do the guilt dance where you have to explain again how long you've been out of the labour market and what shitty useless jobs you did before. It feels like I'm having to justify myself to them - and in return what do I get? Nothing. No help is offered, none will ever be forthcoming from this system. It cannot help; it is structurally incapable of doing so.
But the worst aspect was the five minute inquisition at the start where I had to justify why I should be favoured with a telephone interview - unlike all the other people who also suffer from stress but still manage to turn up in person.
Like this is some physical contest.
This language; the use of argument by comparison is horseshit. It has no relevance nor validity other than to shame you. What makes YOU so special? But I'm not arguing that I am special, and I don't consider a reasonable degree of flexibility, a meeting of the minds halfway as a compromise, to be remotely privileged. They demand of you, but you cannot ask for concessions. You are given them where and when without question and the notion that you, the subject they are supposed to be helping, should maybe want to make things a little bit easier; well we can't have that can we. There are a million ways to compromise. None of them are unreasonable.
And I'm not asking in ignorance of anyone else. I can only speak for myself. If other people, when they deal with the DWP, feel they need to ask for concessions then that's a matter for them. Why use that against me - or indeed anyone? It's childish. Yet he tried to imply (very heavily) that he couldn't properly help me without my presence physically across the desk. What difference does it make? A phone conversation serves exactly the same purpose: we are having a conversation. My physical presence isn't required, we aren't getting married ffs!
So it just feels like tactics intended to wear you down, to force you into submission.
But the stupidest part of all is, at the end, he conceded that, because I'd already tried all the resources he could suggest, that he had nothing to offer anyway! So the whole thing, which comprised of nothing more than him asking me details about my claim to which he already knew the answer, was a a waste of time!
The problem with these resources, I maintain, is that they are separate; they are apart from the society we live in. What mental health requires is integrated services that don't just deal with a narrow purview or focus and then expect you to function. That's like expecting a recovering alcoholic, after keeping himself clean and away from beer for six months, to be OK with popping down the pub with his mates.
Our whole problem is that society creates mental distress and marginalises the methods of treatment. You are expected to journey to the fringe of society, down a long lonely path, where the treatment resources are kept, and then, after a suitable time, return and pick up as you were. This does not address the structural causes of mental distress (of course some mental health issues arise from different means, to be clear) and, like the alcoholic, will only serve to reinvigorate those pressures.
I find the alcoholic analogy to be relevant because I believe that this kind of mental distress is not a temporary thing, like a cut or a broken bone. Alcoholism (I'm given to believe) is viewed by many sufferers as something they will have to live with forever. I feel the same way about mental health.
Unfortunately society, with its focus on production and subsequent alienation (work is alienating, see under Marx), isn't changing fast enough to not just integrate better ways of coping and dealing with mental health and, particularly, neuro-diversity, but to fundamentally change so as to prevent these problems in the first place. Cure society, cure the people in it.
In the meantime expect more pointless phone conversations from people who lack the resources to offer, paid to gaslight the people they talk to.
Why do they ask me how long I've been claiming? They have this information in front of them. they know this. Yet every time they ask me this; they do the guilt dance where you have to explain again how long you've been out of the labour market and what shitty useless jobs you did before. It feels like I'm having to justify myself to them - and in return what do I get? Nothing. No help is offered, none will ever be forthcoming from this system. It cannot help; it is structurally incapable of doing so.
But the worst aspect was the five minute inquisition at the start where I had to justify why I should be favoured with a telephone interview - unlike all the other people who also suffer from stress but still manage to turn up in person.
Like this is some physical contest.
This language; the use of argument by comparison is horseshit. It has no relevance nor validity other than to shame you. What makes YOU so special? But I'm not arguing that I am special, and I don't consider a reasonable degree of flexibility, a meeting of the minds halfway as a compromise, to be remotely privileged. They demand of you, but you cannot ask for concessions. You are given them where and when without question and the notion that you, the subject they are supposed to be helping, should maybe want to make things a little bit easier; well we can't have that can we. There are a million ways to compromise. None of them are unreasonable.
And I'm not asking in ignorance of anyone else. I can only speak for myself. If other people, when they deal with the DWP, feel they need to ask for concessions then that's a matter for them. Why use that against me - or indeed anyone? It's childish. Yet he tried to imply (very heavily) that he couldn't properly help me without my presence physically across the desk. What difference does it make? A phone conversation serves exactly the same purpose: we are having a conversation. My physical presence isn't required, we aren't getting married ffs!
So it just feels like tactics intended to wear you down, to force you into submission.
But the stupidest part of all is, at the end, he conceded that, because I'd already tried all the resources he could suggest, that he had nothing to offer anyway! So the whole thing, which comprised of nothing more than him asking me details about my claim to which he already knew the answer, was a a waste of time!
The problem with these resources, I maintain, is that they are separate; they are apart from the society we live in. What mental health requires is integrated services that don't just deal with a narrow purview or focus and then expect you to function. That's like expecting a recovering alcoholic, after keeping himself clean and away from beer for six months, to be OK with popping down the pub with his mates.
Our whole problem is that society creates mental distress and marginalises the methods of treatment. You are expected to journey to the fringe of society, down a long lonely path, where the treatment resources are kept, and then, after a suitable time, return and pick up as you were. This does not address the structural causes of mental distress (of course some mental health issues arise from different means, to be clear) and, like the alcoholic, will only serve to reinvigorate those pressures.
I find the alcoholic analogy to be relevant because I believe that this kind of mental distress is not a temporary thing, like a cut or a broken bone. Alcoholism (I'm given to believe) is viewed by many sufferers as something they will have to live with forever. I feel the same way about mental health.
Unfortunately society, with its focus on production and subsequent alienation (work is alienating, see under Marx), isn't changing fast enough to not just integrate better ways of coping and dealing with mental health and, particularly, neuro-diversity, but to fundamentally change so as to prevent these problems in the first place. Cure society, cure the people in it.
In the meantime expect more pointless phone conversations from people who lack the resources to offer, paid to gaslight the people they talk to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)