typhotic iceberg 煙霧冰山

(the fulmination of everyday strife 日常生氣的暴言)

(written in response to another blog post that said everyone should blog as a form of self-expression)

(對說大家都該寫部落格來自我表現的部落格文章的回應)

Yes, this is polemic. No, it's not just because I think your life is uninteresting, or that we need to “unplug and get back to the real world.” It's because I'm convinced that when you publicly put your thoughts on the internet, it's impossible to avoid becoming spectaclized.

是,這是反調。不,不是因為我覺得你生活無趣,也不是因為我覺得我們都該「擺脫電子器回到真正的世界去」。是因為我認為把自己思想公開放在網路上時,無法避免自己的景觀化。

By “spectacle” I mean the situationist concept of the same name, defined in thesis 4 of Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle as “a social relation between people that is mediated by images” (translator: Ken Knabb). Images in this case don't refer to strictly visual images but representations of reality in general. You don't—or rather, I'm very convinced that you can't—exist as a whole person on the internet. Only as digital representations of a person, only as fragments of yourself mediated by the internet in ways that alienate you from your own self-expression. This alienation through mediation of representations is what I mean by “becoming spectaclized.”

所謂的「景觀」是指情境者的同名概念,在居伊·德博的《景觀社會》第四節定義為「人與人之間的一種社會關係,透過圖像的中介而建立的關係」(譯者:張新木)。圖像在這個情況之下不是嚴格只在指視覺圖片,而是廣義指任何代表現實的表演。你不能—或許該說,我非常認為你不可能—作為一個完整的人在網路上存在。只能有數位代表個人的表演,只有被網路中介的個人的碎片,造成你和你自我表現之間的異化。這樣通過表演的中介而造成的異化就是我所謂提到的「景觀化」。

One of the worst examples of spectaclization on the internet is how most social media platforms force you post as voice of authority, because the platform requires everyone to interact with each other as potential followers. Even if you say you're not speaking as a voice of authority, the platform's mediation disciplines everyone to respond as potential followers—and so I've discovered on these platforms, those who object to some opinion often speak with a tone of “you're imposing your authority on me,” because they're playing the role of those who've refused to follow. Actually refusing to follow or be followed by anyone will still not free you from spectaclization; you still cannot prevent the platform from representing you with a 0 following / 0 follower count, from giving you with the appearance of refusing other people's authority / being someone with no authority at all.

最糟糕的網路景觀化例子之一就是大部分社交媒體平台強迫你冒著照權威聲的身分來po,因為平台規定大家必須利用潛在跟隨者的身分來互動。就算你說自己不是在利用權威聲的身分說話,平台的中介會規訓大家按照潛在跟隨者的身分來回應—因此我發現在這種平台上,反對意見的人常會有「你在強迫我接受你的權威」的口氣,因為他們在扮演拒絕當跟隨的角色。真的拒絕跟隨或讓別人跟隨你的話,也還是不能擺脫景觀化;你還是不能阻止平台利用 0 個跟隨中 / 0 位跟隨者的算數來代表你,為你創造拒絕其他人的權威 / 自己沒有權威的面貌。

What about “better, less alienating ways of mediation” like “friends” on Facebook? To me that's using the appearance of personal intimacy to disguise the alienation created by Facebook's mediation. A Facebook friend does not have to be your actual friend, but by accepting a Facebook friend request from someone, you're forced to represent yourselves as friends regardless of your actual relationship. Even if you only accept friend requests from people who you do have an actual relationship with, rejecting other people's friend requests will create a representation of not wanting to be friends, regardless of whether or not you wish to express that meaning. On a platform where everyone plays the role of a potential friend, disagreements take on a personal nature. You issue opinions as someone who should have friends, and when you disagree, you must consider whether or not to unfriend someone, creating a representation of a ruined friendship (that might have never even existed in the first place).

那麼,有沒有「更好,更不會有異化性的中介」,像臉書的「朋友」類似?對我來說,那是在利用親密關係的面貌來隱藏臉書的中介造成的異化。一個臉書朋友不需要是你真正的朋友,但是如果你接受了別人的交友邀請,不管真正的關係是怎樣,就必須有朋友的表演。就算你只要接受真的跟你有關係的人的交友邀請,取消別人的交友邀請會造成不當朋友的表演,無論你想不想表達出那種意思。在一個大家扮演潛在朋友角色的平台上,意見不合會有針對個人之意。發表意見的時候,你身為一個該有朋友的人;反對意見的時候,必須考慮該不該解除朋友關係,創造毀掉友情的表演(甚至是一開始根本就不存在的友情也要毀)。

I'm not convinced that there's some indie platform out there where we find true free expression by self-managing our own self-spectaclization under capitalism. I don't even know if destroying capitalism will lessen all the spectaclist tendencies we've accustomed ourselves to accepting. My point is that blogging in the society of spectacle feels less like a playground for self-expression than it does like a prison—but so do a lot of things. Sure, we can stop expressing ourselves online, we can refuse to have connections with anyone online because in the end it's all spectacle, but this is social suicide. I want to live.

我不認為有什麼獨立平台能在自我管理我們的自我景觀化之中讓我們找到真正自由的表現。我也不知道消滅資本主義之後會不會減少我們習慣接受的景觀主義傾向。重點就是說,在景觀社會之下寫部落格感覺不像是自我表現的遊樂場,反而更像是監獄—可是很多事情也是這樣。的確,我們可以禁止在網路上表達自己,拒絕跟任何人有關係,說最後都只是景觀,但是這樣是社交自殺。我要的是活。

Or do I? Often I feel like my goal of posting on the internet isn't to realize self-expression, but to get validation from other people. In darker times, I've felt like posting something that doesn't get engagement is just the same as not having posted at all—that at least online, I have the appearance of not having existed at all, and if I can't even convince others to acknowledge a representation of my existence, then why should I bother existing in reality at all?

可是這是實話嘛?我覺得我常常在網路上 po 的目的不是為了實現自我表現,而是為了得到別人的認可。在絕望的時候,我甚至覺得沒人跟我 po 的東西互動就跟什麼都沒 po 一模一樣,而且如果連自己的表演都吸引不了別人的注意,真正的自己憑什麼資格活下去?

“The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: 'What appears is good; what is good appears.'” I have a personality disorder where my ego is severely impacted by other people's perceptions of me to the point where other people's negative perceptions—or merely the potential or representation of negative perceptions—can make me feel suicidal. Every time I make another post with no engagement the disordered side of my brain sides with the spectacle and says, “that means your post was bad, that means you're bad, that means you should disappear.” But nobody can rescue me from the hell of my brain besides myself. Nobody is obligated to engage with my posts, and nobody is obliged to care about who I am or what I think or what I'm going through. So where does that leave me?

「景觀表現為一種巨大的實證性,既無可爭辯又難以企及。它所說的無非就是『岀現的就是好東西,好東西就會出現』。」我有人格違常,我的自我會在別人的看法之下受到嚴重的影響,嚴重到別人的消極看法—或只不過是消極看法的潛在或表演—能讓我想自殺。每當我又創造一個沒有互動的貼文,心裡有一部分就會跟著景觀站在同一邊,告訴我說:「那表示你的貼文不好,那表示你就是不好,那表示你就該消失。」但是除了自己之外,沒有人能從我腦海中的地域把我救出來。沒有人有跟我貼文互動的義務,也沒有人必須關心我是誰或我的想法是什麼或我現在生活過得怎樣。所以我這樣該怎麼辦?

I end up posting for myself, because as someone who can't usually get engagement, I have no other alternative. Still, there is a part of me that insists on continuing to issue opinions as a “worthless nobody” in the spectacle, that insists on continuing to take up space that the spectacle's numbers tell me I don't deserve—because I know I am not the only one who's viewed as a “worthless nobody,” and that there are others who have it way worse. I end up posting for something more hopeless than self-expression—for finding solidarity in the face of alienation. I see myself in the negations of other people's existences, and I hope that others can see themselves in my negation too. But I only end up grasping at representations, longing to feel something real.

我最後是為了自己在 po,因為身為通常是得不到互動的人,我沒有別的選擇。可是,我還是有一部分執意想繼續在景觀中「無名之輩廢物」的位置發表意見,執意想霸佔景觀的算數說我沒資格佔的空間—因為我知道我不是唯一被視為是無名之輩廢物的人,也知道還有其他人的狀況更糟。我最後是為了比自我表現更沒救的原因在 po—是為了找到不顧異化的團結。我在別人存在的否定中看見自己,也希望別人能在我的否定中得到同樣的意識。可是我最後接觸到的就只是表演,就只剩下感受到真實的希望。

For Buddhist Revolutionaries 給予佛教徒革命家

(I wrote this polemic in December of 2022; even though it doesn't completely reflect my current political thinking, I believe that it reflects the development of my political thinking, so I want to post it here with minor edits for commemoration.)

(這是我 2022 年 12 月寫的反調;雖然不完全反映我現在的政治思想,我認為它有反映我的政治思想的發展,所以想稍微修改一下 po 在這裡做紀念。)

1

Don't make truths, make enemies.

做的不該是真理,是敵人。

2

As long as I have enemies, I will not call myself a hero. As long as there are those who say I am wrong, I will not call myself correct. As long as suffering remains in this world, I will not call myself enlightened. As long as our revolutions have yet to be won, I will not call myself a revolutionary.

只要我有敵人,我就不會說自己是英雄。只要有人說我錯,我就不會說自己是對。只要痛苦還在這世界中,我就不會說自己有正覺。只要我們的革命還未勝,我就不會說自己是革命家。

3

Revolution is first and foremost a worldly task. Do not dare to speak of spiritual liberation if the world's liberation has not been won.

革命首先是個世間任務。如果世間解脫未勝,別有膽子去談靈性解脫。

4

A revolutionary will forsake nirvana for the world.

革命家會為了世界拋棄涅槃。

5

Revolution is samsara, an endless cycle of death and rebirth, of violent escape.

革命是輪迴、是不斷生死的循環、是暴力性的逃路。

6

Yes, violence is necessary for revolution. But not all violence is revolutionary.

沒錯,革命需要暴力。但不是所有的暴力都會有革命性。

7

Those who fear violence: do you fear to aim or be shot?

怕暴力的人:你們怕的是瞄準還是被射?

8

Upaya means by any means necessary.

佛教的方便表示該利用一切必要的手段。

9

If it helps, keep it. If it fails, abandon it.

有幫助就留。沒幫助就丟。

10

Reality is what we collectively decide to permit.

現實是我們集體決定要容許的事。

11

Don’t make friends, make comrades.

做的不該是朋友,是同志。

12

Don’t make peace, make justice.

做的不該是和平,是正義。

13

To hell like a mad dog.

像瘋狗一樣去死。

(and this post is not a callout 這 po 文也不是在嗆聲)

(written in response to this post) (回復這個 po 文)

I think I define “callout” in an unusually neutral way in comparison to most other people. For me, it doesn't matter whether it's said in private or public, online or offline, a callout is just when you tell someone that something they did potentially or actually caused harm. I use “harm” as an umbrella term to refer to any behavior that threatens or damages someone else's autonomy (control over their own life), which includes the obvious instances of abuse, sexual assault, and rape, but also things that further oppression (domination or exploitation of a group) or marginalization (exclusion of a group for the sake of securing another group's superior status) (because oppression and marginalization have the function of asserting the oppressing or privileged group's autonomy at the expense of the oppressed or marginalized group's autonomy). Thus, I believe the goal of a callout is to bring accountability for harm, to ask the harmdoer to confront the reality that they caused harm, stop the harm, and change the harmful behavior.

我覺得自己為「嗆聲」做的定義跟別人大部分的定義來比算是不尋常的中立。對我來說,不管私下或公開,網上或網外,嗆聲只不過是告訴別人做了一件有可能或真的有造成傷害的事。我按照總稱方式利用「傷害」這詞,用來形容任何威脅或損壞別人自治(掌控自己生活)的行為,顯而易見包括虐待、性侵和強暴,但也有包刮促進壓迫(征服或剝削一群)或邊緣化(為了保護另一群的優越地位排斥一群)的事(因為壓迫和邊緣化的作用就是以被壓迫者或被邊緣化群的自治做代價來維護壓迫者或特權群的自治)。因此,我認為嗆聲的目的就是傷害的問責,要求傷害者面對自己有創造傷害的事實、停止傷害、改變有害的行為。

I understand the concept of callouts in terms of Sara Ahmed's feminist praxis of killing joy. In “Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)”, she says:

我是按照 Sara Ahmed 的女權敗興實踐來理解嗆聲的概念。在〈女權敗興者(和其他的任性主體)〉的文章之中,她說:

To be willing to go against a social order, which is protected as a moral order, a happiness order is to be willing to cause unhappiness, even if unhappiness is not your cause. To be willing to cause unhappiness might be about how we live an individual life (not to choose “the right path” is readable as giving up the happiness that is presumed to follow that path). Parental responses to coming out, for example, can take the explicit form not of being unhappy about the child being queer but of being unhappy about the child being unhappy. Even if you do not want to cause the unhappiness of those you love, a queer life can mean living with that unhappiness. To be willing to cause unhappiness can also be how we immerse ourselves in collective struggle, as we work with and through others who share our points of alienation. Those who are unseated by the tables of happiness can find each other.

願意違背某種社會制度,在道德方面被保護的制度,美滿制度,就是願意導致不滿,就算是不滿不是你的宗致。願意導致不滿可能跟個人生活的方式有關(不選擇「正確的路」可以被應作為放棄順路假定的美滿。)例如說,家長對出櫃的反應可能會是明確不是對孩子是酷兒的不滿而是對孩子有不滿的不滿。就算是你不想導致親人的不滿,酷兒的生活可能就是要對那種不滿認命。願意導致不滿可能也跟我們如何沉浸於集體鬥爭之中有關,當我們跟著和通過在同一點感到疏離的人一起合作。被美滿桌移出座位的人可以互相找到彼此。

So, yes, let's take the figure of the feminist killjoy seriously. Does the feminist kill other people's joy by pointing out moments of sexism? Or does she expose the bad feelings that get hidden, displaced, or negated under public signs of joy? Does bad feeling enter the room when somebody expresses anger about things, or could anger be the moment when the bad feelings that circulate through objects get brought to the surface in a certain way? The feminist subject “in the room” hence “brings others down” not only by talking about unhappy topics such as sexism but by exposing how happiness is sustained by erasing the signs of not getting along. Feminists do kill joy in a certain sense: they disturb the very fantasy that happiness can be found in certain places. To kill a fantasy can still kill a feeling. It is not just that feminists might not be happily affected by what is supposed to cause happiness, but our failure to be happy is read as sabotaging the happiness of others.

所以,對,我們來認真地對待女權敗興者的人物。女權主義者是在指出性別歧視的時候掃除別人的美滿嗎?還是她在暴露公開喜悅表現之下被隱藏、移開或否定的不好情緒?不好情緒是在某人表露憤怒的時候出現在房間之內嗎,還是憤怒就是物體內循環的不好情緒的一種顯露?「在房間之內」的女權主體因此「讓別人消沉」,不只是因為提出像性別歧視一樣不開心的話題,也是因為暴露美滿是靠清除合不來的表現來維持的。女權主義者的確是在一種方面造成敗興:她們擾亂美滿能在某些地方找到的那個幻想。掃除幻想還是能掃除情緒。不只是因為女權主義者可能沒有被該造成美滿的東西快樂地感動,而也是因為我們對快樂的失敗被應作為破壞別人的美滿。

I feel like most people think a callout is when you publicly point out someone's wrongs for the purpose of publicly shaming them. There's a spectaclized implication, as I've written before, that the person making the callout is “imposing [their] authority” on everyone else, potentially illegitimately turning subjective wrongs into objective harm. Thus, the person making a callout is, as Sara Ahmed writes of feminist killjoys, “go[ing] against a social order, which is protected as a moral order, a happiness order,” and willfully “sabotaging the happiness of others.” Thus, I wish to problematize OP's problematization of callouts as “base, cruel, and violent.” The problem isn't callouts, but the mediation of social media platforms. The problem isn't that certain callouts are “base, cruel, and violent” to the point that they can't count as calls for accountability, but that we don't even understand what accountability is, especially in the imagined community of social media.

我覺得大部分的人好像認為嗆聲就是公開指出別人的錯,目的是為了要他人當眾羞辱。有種被景觀化的暗示,就像我所說的一樣,嗆聲者是在「強迫[大家]接受[他]的權威」,可能是在無理地把主觀的錯誤變成客觀的傷害。因此,就像 Sara Ahmed 描述女權敗興者說的一樣,嗆聲者是在「違背某種社會制度,在道德方面被保護的制度,美滿制度」,是在任性地「破壞別人的美滿」。因此,我要問題化 OP 把嗆聲作為「卑鄙、殘忍和暴力」的問題化。問題不是嗆聲,而是社交媒體平台的中介。問題不是某些嗆聲到不能算是在問責,而是我們連問責是什麼都搞不懂,尤其是當我們在社交媒體中想像的共同體之內。

In my personal experience, “accountability” in a primarily social-media-based community means that the harmdoer needs to socially disappear until the harmdoer has reduced their threat levels enough to permit their reappearance.

根據我的個人經驗,在個主要聚集在社交媒體平台上的社群之中,「問責」表示傷害者必須要在社交方面上消失,直到傷害者把自己的危害度降到可以容許重現的形象。

Problem 1: “the harmdoer needs to socially disappear.” This part is about getting the harmdoer to confront the reality that they caused harm, and stop them from doing more harm. However, when the only method you have for responding to harm is ostracism, everyone, regardless of their alleged or actual harm, may be ostracized because of a callout, even if ostracism is not necessary to accountability for every type of harm, which makes people skeptical towards calls for accountability. Many people's first response to a callout is to debate whether or not the harm justifies ostracism. They doubt whether or not harmdoers actually caused harm, uncritically dismissing callouts as baseless fearmongering or agreeing completely with every one for fear of being ostracized.

第一個問題:「傷害者必須要在社交方面上消失」。這部分是關於要讓傷害者面對自己有創造傷害的事實,阻止他們繼續創造更多的傷害。可是,當你唯一對付傷害的方法只有排斥,所有的人,不管他們所謂或真正的傷害是什麼,都有可能為了嗆聲被排斥,即使排斥不一定是每種傷害的問責必要條件,造成人們對要求問責的懷疑。排斥的單一解決方式妨礙到問責的過程。許多人對嗆聲的第一個反應就是開始爭為那種傷害排斥別人到底是不是正當的理由。他們懷疑傷害者到底有沒有真的造成傷害,不加批評地排除嗆聲說都是無根據的散布恐懼心理行為,或是怕被排斥怕到跟每個嗆聲都完全同意。

The worst case scenario is when people are dismissive of calls for accountability to the point of insisting on being apolitical or reactionary (catchphrase: “I'm just a [insert privileged identity here],” often employs insults about blue hair, pronouns in bio, SJWs, keyboard warriors, or tumblrinas). Alternatively, they will be agreeable to the point of becoming self-abusive or dysfunctionally scrupulous. In any case, ostracism no longer serves as a consequence of causing harm, as a way of stopping harm, but as a way of discipline, of defining acceptable boundaries of discourse.

最糟的情況是人家不理要求問責到堅持當非政治或反動份子的地步(口頭禪:「我只是個[在此處填入有特權的認同]」,經常嘲笑藍髮、個人資料有代詞、SJW、鍵盤戰士、tumblrina(貶抑千篇一律愛利用 tumblr 平台的 SJW,通常指女生))。要不,他們會同意到變成有自虐或失調的謹慎。總而言之,排斥不再是造成傷害的後果,不再是阻止傷害的方法,而是規訓的方法,是在為話語做出界限的界定。

Sometimes, ostracism can turn into its own kind of harm. People of oppressed classes are often ostracized over perceived harms that would have been overlooked if they were in their respective oppressors' classes. Some oppressors or opportunistic social climber types will take advantage of this system that exclusively relies on ostracism for accountability, manufacturing or overstating harm to ostracize people they want out of the way.

有時,排斥可能會變成自立的傷害。在被壓迫階級的人常會因為認為有創造的傷害被排斥,但如果他們是在各自壓迫者的階級的話,這些傷害反而會被忽略。某些壓迫者或愛投機的攀高枝者類人會用這個唯一只靠排斥來問責的系統來佔便宜,亂創或誇大傷害來排斥他們希望解決掉的人。

On the flip side, questioning the praxis of ostracism shouldn't turn into a debate about the perception of harm, and especially not into the gaslighting and retraumatizing of harmed people. This kind of risk is why I don't think callouts and the people who make callouts should be problematized, no matter what the callout's content is. I will never debate other people's perceptions of harm. Again, harm to me is not just a subjective feeling of pain, but behavior that threatens or damages someone else's autonomy, a precise kind of pain caused by that kind of behavior. I am not interested in debating whether or not your subjective feeling of pain is “valid.” If necessary, what I'll debate are the political assumptions behind the behavior's interpretation. To disagree with the politics and praxis of the person making the callout should not be conflated with invalidating their pain. That conflation is related to problem 2, the assumptions behind what it takes to create safety for person who made the callout.

反而言之,疑問排斥的實踐不該變成開啟認識傷害能力的爭論,而且特別不能變成情感操縱和再次創傷被傷害的人。這種危險就是我認為嗆聲和創造嗆聲的人不該被問題化的原因,不管嗆聲的內容是怎樣。別人認識傷害能力我永遠不會去爭。再說一遍,傷害對我來說不只是主觀的痛苦感覺,而是威脅或損壞別人自治的行為,是那種行為造成的確切痛苦。我沒有興趣去爭你主觀痛苦的感覺到底有沒有「合理」。如果有必要的話,要爭的是行為解釋背後的政治性臆斷。不同意嗆聲者的政治和實踐不該跟不在乎嗆聲者的痛苦混淆。那種混淆是跟第二個問題有關,關於為嗆聲者創造安全的必要條件的背後臆斷。

Problem 2: “until the harmdoer has reduced their threat levels enough to permit their reappearance.” This part is about getting the harmdoer to change their behavior. In theory, those who were harmed get to decide when their harmdoers have become unthreatening enough to socially reappear. However, as Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha observes with partner abuse, it mostly “comes down to a popularity contest”—if the harmdoer was popular enough they can ignore harmed people's terms, often refusing to disappear at all, with the support of the public.

第二個問題:「直到傷害者把自己的危害度降到可以容許重現的形象」。這部分是關於改變傷害者的行為。在理論上,傷害者不再有威脅到能容許重現的狀態是由被傷害的人來判斷。可是,就跟 Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha 在伴侶虐待方面觀察的一樣,大部分「歸根結底就是人氣競賽」—如果傷害者人氣足夠的話,他能不理被傷害的人的條件,經常拒絕消失,而且會被大眾支持。

Sometimes those who were harmed have no idea what a harmdoer reducing their threat levels looks like; this is normal. What frustrates me is when harmed people, reacting from a place of trauma, completely reject the possibility that any of their harmdoers can ever reduce their threat levels, and they need everyone else around them to agree in order to feel safe. What frustrates me is the collective choice to enable instead of work through this kind of maladaptive trauma response, the insistence on splitting and being split on as praxis, which is a praxis that social media, as a medium that disciplines users through the threat of ostracism, is designed to encourage.

有時候被傷害的人完全不知道傷害者怎樣才能降低自己的危害度;這很正常。讓我感到煩惱的是被傷害的人,因為是在從創傷的地位反應,完全拒絕傷害者能降低自己危害度的前途,而且需要旁邊全部的人跟他同意才能感到安全。讓我感到煩惱的是大家決定不消化,反而贊助這種適應不良的創傷因應,堅持把分裂和被分作為實踐, 也就是社交媒體,作為利用排斥的威脅來規訓使用者的媒體,在設計中鼓勵的實踐。

For those who believe harmdoers will never actually reduce their threat levels, accountability just becomes “the harmdoer needs to socially disappear.” The harmdoer must confront the reality of causing harm and stop doing it, but paradoxically they cannot change. The harmdoer must cease to be harmful while continuing to play the role of the harmdoer by remaining permanently ostracized, and this is called accountability. The harmdoer is viewed as a lost cause, and changing the harmdoer becomes equated to apologia for harm. In this system, community is held together by a collective agreement to give up on ending harm; it's good enough to displace harm outside the community, and if you care about who's outside then get the fuck out.

對相信傷害者永遠不會降低自己危害度的人來說,問責變成只有「傷害者必須要在社交方面上消失」的條件。傷害者必須面對自己有創造傷害的事實和停止傷害,可是矛盾地不能改變。傷害者必須停止自己的有害,可是需要繼續扮演傷害者的角色接受永遠的排斥,而且這就是所謂的問責。傷害者被視為是無可救藥,傷害者的改變和傷害的辯護混爲一談。在這系統之下,共同體是靠著放棄結束傷害的集體協議來保持團結;傷害能移到共同體的外面就好,愛關心誰在外面的話就給我滾出去。

In “Of Complaints and Apologies: Feminist Theses Against Carceralism,” Madeline Lane-McKinley writes:

在〈抱怨跟道歉之間:反對監獄主義的女權論點〉的文章之中,Madeline Lane-McKinley 說:

When a complaint is spoken, a feminist practice entails listening for how to care. Yet all too often complaints are met without any care – their implications, immediately, become enwrapped in a carceral logic.

當抱怨被說出來,女權主義的實施有聽好如何關心的必要。然而抱怨太常不會被關心 – 馬上,它們的意味被監獄性的邏輯包圍住。

Collective care, however, may not look like “transformative justice.” Perhaps justice cannot be. Nothing can be undone. Instead of justice, and instead of punishment, the problem is, as in the case of redemption, that of revolutionary possibility. Much is discussed of the necessity — or non-necessity — of violence in revolution. This is a different question, though not unrelated. There is not a binary opposition between violence and care. Yet care is the very basis of revolution: revolutionary possibilities emerge in contexts of collectivity, mutuality, and care. These are contexts of shared experience, shared struggle, and shared survival.

集體的關心,然而,不一定會看起來像是「轉型正義」。或許正義得不了。做的事不能被取消。與其正義,與其懲罰,問題不如,跟贖罪的情況一樣,是革命性的前途。有許多的討論關於暴力在革命的必要 — 或不必。這是不同的問題,但也並不沒相關。暴力跟關心的關係不是兩元的對立。然而關心正是革命的基礎:革命性的前途是出現在集體、相互和關心的背景之間。這些是共同的經驗、共同的鬥爭和共同的求生的背景。

The internet is where care goes to die. The so-called “community” found on social media is imagined through parasocial interactions, and we've got to stop confusing these interactions with care. Accountability on the internet is a chimeric beast, because we are a collective without collectivity. We do not have “shared experience, shared struggle, and shared survival,” we have something more akin to shared exchanges: posts we like and boost, profiles we friend, follow, mute, and block, comments we read, reply to, screenshot and circulate. We think these spectaclized representations mean shared experience, struggle, and survival. When we find out it doesn't, we implode. This anathema towards outsiders in online communities is the pain of implosion, the pain of betrayal from those we imagined as comrades. So-called “callout” or “cancel culture” is an attempt to escape this pain through the rigorous expulsion of false comrades. And I do not have the heart to condemn anyone for wishing to avoid pain, no matter how problematic their ways. Instead I want to deconstruct the conditions that caused them to utilize those ways.

網路就是關心的送死之地。所謂在社交媒體上的「共同體」是依靠擬社會人際互動而想像出來的;拜託我們不要再把這些互動當成關心。網路上的問責是個嵌合的毛病,因為我們是沒有集體性的集體。我們並沒有「共同的經驗、共同的鬥爭和共同的求生」,我們比較有的是共同的交流:能按讚或轉發的 po 文、能增加、跟隨、靜音、封鎖的個人檔案、能被讀、被回復、被擷取和傳出去的留言。我們認為這些被景觀化的表現代表就是有共同的經驗、鬥爭和求生。當發現沒有的時候,我們就會內爆。網路社群對外人的深惡痛絕就是這內爆的痛苦,被我們想像為同志的人背叛的痛苦。這痛苦就是所謂的「嗆聲」或「取消文化」試圖通過假同志的嚴厲開除試圖避開的事。而我不忍心指責任何希望避開痛苦的人,不管他們方式多麼有問題。我反而要的是解構導致他們使用那些方式的條件。

I suspect that the reason parasocial interactions online have taken the place of care is because people are not finding care in the real world offline. I know, for some people, this spectaclized community really is all they have. To change that requires connecting and organizing beyond the scope of the internet. Within the internet, “I” am nothing but representations all the way down. “I” can't care about “you,” and “you” can't care about “me.” To quote Wendy Trevino: “Mostly, I have questions / & don’t want to find myself. I’d rather / Look at my choices & yours. Yup. Nope. Yup.”

我猜想網路的擬社會人際互動代替關心的原因就是因為人們在網路外的現實世界找不到關心。我知道,對某些人來說,真的就只有這被景觀化的共同體。要改變的話必須超越網路的範圍去聯繫和組織。在網路之中,「我」只不過是無盡的表現。「我」無法關心「你」,「你」也無法關心「我」。引用 Wendy Trevino 的話來說: 「大多,我有問題 / 而且不想發現自己。我寧願 / 看看我和你的選擇。行。不行。行。」

a transmasc manifesto

gender is an identity. gender is an expression. gender is how you look, how you act, how you're expected to act by others. gender is a role. gender is a position. gender is an imposition. gender is what the cisheteropatriarchy wants you to do, wants you to be—how it wants you to submit. it assigns it to you at birth, based on how you look, and from then on you're expected to keep up your act for the rest of your life. gender, like Judith Butler famously says, is a performance—but some of us don't follow the script. some of us won't follow the script.

and some of us aren't even satisfied with not following the script either. no, we want to burn the whole stage down. trans, not as in transition, but in transgression. transmasculinity—transgressing masculinity. i am not here to act like a man—i am here to ruin your gender. i am here to look like you without acting like how you want me to. i am here to destroy all unities among expression, emotion, interaction, domination, and submission which you hold sacred and essential to your role as creator and enforcer of the cisheteropatriarchy. and in my destruction, i will not only create myself, but create space for others to do the same to you and your enabling ilk.

agender isn't enough—i need to be antigender. i am not simply satisfied with removing myself from your system and finding community with others who have done the same. i will not be satisfied until your entire system of domination and exploitation of all who are not your gender is gone. gender is a conspiracy. gender exists to serve hierarchy. and i refuse to serve.

我是要來敗壞你的性別

跨男傾向的宣言

性別就是認同。性別就是表現。性別就是你的外表、你的行為、被人家認為你該有的行為。性別就是角色。性別就是定位。性別就是限定性別就是順性別加異性戀父權制要你做的事、要你當的人—要你這樣順服。它在你一出生時就按照外表給指定,從此之後你也就是該保持角色繼續演下去。性別,跟朱迪斯·巴特勒說的一模一樣,就是表演—可是我們其中有某一些人不按照劇本去做。有些人不想要按照劇本去做。

而且我們其中有某一些人連有按照劇本的拒絕權都還不滿意。不,我們要的是把整個舞臺完全燒到殆盡。跨,不是性別跨越的跨,是跨越界限的跨。跨男傾向—跨越男性傾向的界限。我不是要來當男子漢—我是要來敗壞你的性別。我要跟你有一樣的外表但不要有你認為我該有的行為。我是要來毀滅你為了演順性別加異性戀父權制的創造者跟執行者角色必要崇拜性統一的表現、情緒、社交、宰制、順服。而在我毀滅的過程中,我不只會創造自己,還也會創造讓跟我同樣做的人把你跟縱容你同類的人作為目標的空間。

無性別就是不夠—我需要反性別。把自己移出你的系統再跟其他像我一樣做的人找出共同不能這樣就讓我輕易地滿足。直到你整個宰制跟剝削所有不是你性別的人的系統消失為止我才會滿意。性別是陰謀。性別存在就是為了要導致等級制度的服從。我就是不服。

Written in 2022

Move, as if you're already dead, as if they've already killed you once and they'd do it again. Move, before they do it again, be ready to turn into a knife at any moment. Cut like you're noise with a purpose and make their silence bleed. Move and know history has already fallen on our shoulders. Move and know justice has already fallen in their breaths. Move as long as our breaths are still remaining in their presence— move.

暴動來信

2022 年著

動 當作你早就死了, 當作他們早就把你殺過一次 下次也會再殺。動 就在下次還沒來之前,準備 變成刀 在瞬間中出現。割 就像你是有目的的噪音 讓他們的沉默出血。動 就知道歷史 早就掛 在我們身上。動 就知道正義 早就掛 在他們嘴上。動 當我們最後一口氣 還保持在他們的面前— 動。

In 2018 on tumblr I wrote an essay called “Breaking Down the Term 'Voidpunk.'” In that essay, I explored the different connotations behind “void” and “punk,” and attempted to describe how “voidpunk” as a new term mixed those connotations together, and how to extrapolate praxis from that mixing. The main points of the essay roughly went like this:

  • “Void” has an implication of nihilism
  • “Punk” has a history of individualistic rebellion against society
  • “Void” + “Punk” implies “human” is a concept based in nothing, and instead of performing “humanity,” why not rebel against society by personally identifying with your lack of humanity—which is a response generated by Western-centric understandings of humanity and rebellion
  • Voidpunk as a concept is primarily concerned with how beings viewed as “not human” due to dehumanizing marginalization should deal with the society that dehumanizes them
  • At the time I identified 4 types of praxes: misanthropy (going against society (if I had written this now, I would have said anarchism's anti-social or anti-civ), perhaps even wishing for the annihilation of the human race), solitude (acting like a hermit and minimizing social interaction), adaptation (following your own ideas instead of those imposed by society to determine how you associate), and speculation (actively investing your energy into changing society, perhaps even to the point of treating society as a means to an ideological end)
  • Voidpunk was defined by a characteristic of recognizing that the self and society were irreconcilable, because the basic function of society was to create alienation

2018 年我在 tumblr 上寫了一篇文章,〈分析「空虛龐克」這一詞〉。在那文章之中,我探索了「空虛」和「龐克」隱含的不同意義,試圖描述「空虛龐克」的新詞如何把那些意義混合在一起,並且從這樣的混合如何推斷出實踐。文章的主要內容大概是這樣:

  • 「空虛」有虛無主義的意味
  • 「龐克」有叛逆個人主義的歷史
  • 「空虛」+「龐克」的意味就是「人」是憑空捏造的概念,與其「人性」的表演,不如叛逆在個人方面上認同自己缺乏的人性—而這種反應是對人和反抗以西方為中心的認識創造出來的
  • 空虛龐克的概念主要關注的是因為剝奪人性的邊緣化被視為「不是人」的生物該如何處理自己跟剝奪祂們人性的社會的關係
  • 當時我確定了四種實踐:厭世(反社會(如果現在寫,我會說無治主義的反群、反文明),甚至希望人類被消滅)、獨居(像隱士般把社交互動降到最低)、適應(按照自己,而不是社會強加於的想法來安排交往)、臆想(積極投入精力改變社會,甚至把社會當作是實現主義的手段)
  • 空虛龐克的特點就是自我跟社會無法化解的意識,因為社會基本的功能就是製造疏離

At the time, the creator of voidpunk as a concept roughly gave me the following response: “If you don't resonate with voidpunk because of your background there's no need to identify as voidpunk. Voidpunk isn't something meant to be used to harm other people.” Later, in 2019, the creator then made a post that said:

  1. There is no one “right” or “wrong” way to be voidpunk. There is no voidpunk flag, there is no specific voidpunk aesthetic, there are no rules to voidpunk.

  2. There is no deep meaning behind the term “voidpunk”. It was literally coined just because it sounded cool. You can ascribe meaning to it if you like, but at the end of the day, voidpunk is not necessarily about a “lack” of anything and does not have any specific look or feel to it.

當時,空虛龐克的概念創造者對我文章的反應大概是:「如果因為自己的背景不跟空虛龐克有共鳴就不必認同自己是空虛龐克。空虛龐克不是利用來傷害別人的東西。」後來,在 2019 年,創造者又 po 了新貼文說:

  1. 當空虛龐克沒有「對」或「錯」的方式。沒有空虛龐克旗幟、沒有特別的空虛龐克美感、沒有空虛龐克的規則。

  2. 「空虛龐克」這一詞沒有更深的意義。杜撰的原因只是因為聽起來很酷。想要的話可以自己歸因意義,可是不管怎麼說,空虛龐克不是關於什麼東西的「缺乏」也沒有任何特別的式樣或感受。

In short, the message is “I think your type of critique doesn't matter to voidpunk at all.” Well, that's fine. After all, I'm a rebel, I'm not after respect from others, but overturning the fate of the world. When I wrote “Breaking Down the Term 'Voidpunk,'” my goal wasn't to persuade the creator of voidpunk, but to express my own sentiments within the aromantic community, hoping to find resonance from other members. The me now who has long left that aromantic community has complicated feelings about voidpunk. On one hand, voidpunk inspired a kind of nonhumanistic ethos within me, which went on to permeate much of my later works of fiction. On the other hand, there's the creator's apathy towards this kind of ideological development and the majority of voidpunks on tumblr only treating voidpunk as an eye-catching aesthetic that at most has an important backstory about marginalization. Can I détourn voidpunk? No—do I need to détourn voidpunk? The thing is I'm really not that interested. Forget about voidpunk—I'm more interested in discussing what I took away from voidpunk.

總而言之,意思就是說「我覺得你這種批評對空虛龐克完全沒有意義。」好,沒問題。畢竟我是造反者,我要的不是別人的尊敬,而是革除世界的天命。當年我寫〈分析「空虛龐克」這一詞〉的原因也不是為了說服空虛龐克的創造者,而是為了在無浪漫傾向的社群之中說出我自己的感想,希望能找到其他成員的共鳴。現在早已離開那無浪漫傾向社群的我對空虛龐克有複雜的感覺。在一方面上,空虛龐克在我心中引發了一種非人類主義精神,而那非人類主義的精神滲透了我許多後來的虛構作品。在另一方面上,有了創造著對這種主義發展的冷漠和大部分在 tumblr 上把空虛龐克只當作是引人注目,頂多有關於邊緣化的重要故事背景的美感。可以異軌空虛龐克嗎?不—有需要異軌空虛龐克嗎?事實上我沒有太多興趣這麼做。忘了空虛龐克吧—我比較有興趣討論的是從空虛龐克得到的資訊。

At this point in time, if I were an academic, I would coin a horrible new phrase: “post-voidpunk.” Instead of doing that, I'd rather use language that's more distanced from voidpunk, since my demands are out of alignment with voidpunk's lack of demands. Earlier I used the term “nonhumanistic” to describe what I was doing. Now I want to discuss its implications.

到了這個段落,如果我是學者的話,我會新杜撰一個恐怖的詞:「後空虛龐克」。與其這樣的做法,我寧可利用跟空虛龐克有更多隔離的用語,畢竟我的要求跟空虛龐克缺乏的要求不一致。之前我利用「非人類主義」這一詞來形容我在做的事。現在我想說明一下非人類主義的意味。

“Nonhumanistic” comes from “humanism,” which Richard Ninmo in “The Making of the Human: Anthropocentrism in Modern Social Thought” defines as the doctrine of humans as “the measure of all things” in the world. It not only treats humans as exceptional beings, but also humanity as a universally generalizable condition. In Post-colonial Studies: Key Concepts, Ashcroft et al. criticize universalism / universality for “offer[ing] a hegemonic view of existence by which the experiences, values and expectations of a dominant culture are held to be true for all humanity.” In colonialism, the so-called universal humanity of the colonizer is used as the standard by which colonized people are judged. However, historically the response of many anticolonial thinkers was not to reject humanity, but to criticize the falseness of the colonizer's humanity in favor of recovering a true, decolonized humanity. In “Anti-colonialism and Humanism,” Ndindi Kitonga brings up Frantz Fanon's description in Black Skin, White Masks of the “new humanism” created through the process of disalienation, Steve Biko's “true humanism” only attainable after the successful collective resistance of Black people against racism, Es’kia Mphahlele's African humanism against Western hegemony and white supremacy, as well as Michael Onyebuchi Eze's Ubuntu philosophy as examples.

非人類主義源自人文主義,被 Richard Ninmo 在〈人類的製作:現代社會思想中的人類中心主義〉之內定義為人類當作是「一切事物的尺度」的學說。它不僅把人當作是獨特的生物,還把人性當作是普遍能泛泛而談的狀態。在《後殖民主義:關鍵概念》之中,Ashcroft 與其他作者批評普遍主義 / 普遍性「提供了一種對存在的霸權視角,之中一個主宰文化的經驗、價值觀和期望被當作是所有人的事實。」在殖民主義之中,殖民者所謂普遍的人性被利用來當估量被殖民人的標準。然而,在歷史上許多反殖民思想家的反應不是拒絕人性,而是批評殖民主義人性的虛假,為了要奪回真實,去了殖民化的人性。在〈反殖民主義與人文主義〉之中,Ndindi Kitonga 有舉出 Frantz Fanon 在《黑皮膚,白面具》之中形容去異化過程會創造出來的「新人文主義」、Steve Biko 認為需要黑人成功集體對抗種族歧視之後才能得到的「真人文主義」、Es’kia Mphahlele 反西方霸權跟白人至上主義的非洲人文主義以及 Michael Onyebuchi Eze 烏班圖哲學思想的例子。

In the face of humanism's contradicting lineages, my nonhumanism is a posthuman intervention. The goal of posthumanism is to transcend the human / nonhuman(-coded) binary. My nonhumanism is also influenced by anarchism and communism: in my stories, nonhuman characters are often insurrectionaries, revolutionaries, martyrs, and proletarians dominated or exploited by the state, colonialism, and imperialism. I don't literally use the human / nonhuman(-coded) binary as a way to explore the problem of speciesism; “human” and “nonhuman” to me are actually mere representations of dominator / exploiter / dominated / exploited, images of them spectaclized by the medium of fiction. To transcend the human / nonhuman(-coded) binary is then to transcend the classes of dominator / exploiter / dominated / exploited, creating a new society that has abolished class. The purpose of my nonhumanism was for agitprop in support of a classless society, so its praxis was always clear from the start—a praxis not of self-identity or self-expression, but of collective organization against the status quo of hierarchy and capitalism. Not no rules, but no rule—and absolutely reflecting the status quo's lack of liberation.

面著人文主義相互矛盾的世系,我的非人類主義是一種後人類主義的介入。後人類主義的目標就是超越人 / 非人(編碼)的二元。我的非人類主義也受到無治主義與共產主義的影響:在我的故事和遊戲之中,非人角色通常是被國家、殖民主義和帝國主義主宰或剝削的叛亂者、革命家、烈士和無產階級者。我並不確實地利用人 / 非人(編碼)二元來探索物種歧視的問題;「人」和「非人」其實對我來說只不過是主宰者 / 剝削者 / 被主宰者 / 被剝削者的代表,是他們被虛構的中介景觀化的圖像。要超越人 / 非人(編碼)的二元也就是超越主宰 / 剝削 / 被主宰 / 被剝削的階級,創造廢除階級的社會。我的非人類主義的目標就是為了無階級社會的宣傳鼓動,因此它從一開始就有清楚的實踐—不是自我認同或自我表現的實踐,而是集體組織對抗等級制度和資本主義現狀的實踐。不是沒有規則,是沒有統治—而且絕對地反映在現狀中缺乏的解放。

That having said, even though the lineage of my nonhumanism does include voidpunk, it's impossible to truly compare the two on a political level. Voidpunk never had any political goals, and its creator and users also never attempted to graft any political program onto it. And why should they have? Does everything really have to be weaponized to attack hierarchy and capitalism? Do you really have to ask everyone to make revolution the only goal in their life and treat everyone like a useful corpse? No, you really don't!

話說如此,雖然我的非人類主義的世系有包括空虛龐克,兩種概念無法在政治方面上真正地比較。空虛龐克本來就沒有什麼政治目標,它的創造者和利用者也並沒有試圖把什麼政治綱領移植到概念的身上。而且他們為什們有必要那麼做?難道所有的東西都必須變為攻擊等級制度和資本主義的武器嗎?你是一定要要求大家把革命當作是人生唯一的目標,把大家都當作是有用的屍體嗎?完全沒必要!

Confucius says, “When three are walking together, I am sure to find teachers among them.” I practice low theory. I think there are absolutely new liberatory praxes to be found amidst the hellscape of social media. “I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities and avoid them.” Voidpunk was one of those teachers that ended up having more qualities I wanted to avoid rather than follow—but I would be remiss not to acknowledge it for what it taught me. In the wise words of Ariana Grande, “Thank you, next.”

子曰:「三人行,必有我師焉。」我實施低情境理論。我認為在社交媒體的人間地獄之中確實能找到新的解放性實踐。「擇其善者而從之,其不善者而改之。」空虛龐克算是我師之中要改比要遵從的還要多—但不承認它交給我的知識就是失禮。用 Ariana Grande 明智的話來說:「謝謝,下一位」。

I keep seeing some people bring up an argument along the following lines: we should support certain states because they provide critical material support to anti-imperialist or anti-colonial (or looking back in time, antifascist) resistance, and because there is no other alternative for resistance forces to gain that level of material support, it is a betrayal of solidarity to criticize supporting these states.

我一直看到某些人提出類似這樣的論點:我們該支持某些國家,因為它們為反帝國主義或反殖民主義(或回首過去,反法西斯主義)的抵抗提供關鍵性的物質支援;再說,因為抵抗組織沒有其他的辦法取得那種程度的物質支援,批評這些國家的支持是團結的背叛。

As an anti-statist, I cannot help but feel averse to this kind of argument. But is this a justified reaction? Perhaps it's really me being unrealistic, but how do we determine what reality is? Perhaps the answer is: stop being an existential armchair revolutionary, unless you can immediately solve the material problems of the resistance, which are real at every angle, then shut the fuck up.

身為反國家主義者,我不得不對這種論點感到反感。可是這是有道理的反應嗎?或許我是真的不切實際,可是我們如何判斷什麼是實際?或許回答是:不要再繼續當思考存在的足不出戶革命家,除非你現在能解決抵抗組織千方萬確的物質問題,不然你給我閉嘴。

I do not dispute the fact that resistance forces have no other alternative to obtain the kind of material support that states can currently provide. I will also not dispute my inability to immediately solve the problem. What I do dispute is the refusal to question what relying on the state for material support does for resistance in the name of being realistic. The state is not a neutral political tool that any class or camp can use to carry out its own agenda—it is a hierarchical tool designed to reproduce a social order where one class maintains power over others. Under this structure, material support from the state is coercive to resistance in nature. It forces resistance forces to align with the interests of patron states or lose material support; it compromises resistance by making it synonymous with securing power against political enemies, and makes it open to appropriation.

我對抵抗組織沒有其他辦法取得目前國家能給的物質支援這部分沒有爭議。我也不會去爭自己能解決問題的無能。會爭的是為了實際而拒絕疑問依賴國家的物質支援會對抵抗有什麼樣的影響。國家不是任何階級陣營能用來執行自己的計畫的中立政治工具—它是個製造等級制度的工具,設計目標是再生產維持一個階級對其他階級行駛權力的社會秩序。在這種結構之下,來自國家的物質支援對抵抗有高壓性。抵抗組織被強迫要跟贊助國家的利益保持一致,否則失去物質支援;等同於獲取對抗政治敵人的權力是被損害的抵抗,挪用的抵抗。

The threat of the state to resistance is not some far-off hypothetical situation in the future. Its limiting effects are here, developing now. To call this threat assessment unrealistic, to dismiss it as ideological anarchist drivel, is to reveal what kind of reality you wish to ultimately create. It is a reality where Power is not abolished. It is a reality where Power is still treated as a representation of the masses' power—like Arya Zahedi says, it will not be a real anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, or anti-fascist reality, but a spectacle of these resistance forms.

國家對抵抗的危脅不是什麼遙遠未來的假設情況。它的限制效果現在就在場,正在被發展。要說這個威脅評估不切實際,把它當作無治主義者的胡說而不去考慮,是顯示出你最後希望創造的現實是什麼。在這個現實之中,治權並不會被廢除。在這個現實之中,治權仍然被當作是群眾權力的代表—就跟 Arya Zahedi 說的一模一樣,這不會是個真正反帝國主義、反殖民主義或反法西斯主義的現實,反而會是這些抵抗形式的景觀版本。

Thus, the so-called betrayal to solidarity of this kind of anti-statist position is a spectacle as well—a spectacle of solidarity. But my goal will never be to prove that my perspective on reality is the one that is actually correct. No, I am simply asserting again that the realities we want are not aligned, and accepting that in certain realities I must be the enemy. But to me, what's ultimately most important is not how justified it is for others to regard me as an enemy, but to realize the end of all systems organized by maintaining the power of one group over another, and to recognize when the means and ends have diverged to an unacceptable point.

因此,這樣反國家立場對團結所謂的背叛也是個景觀—是團結的景觀。但我的目的絕不是要證明我對現實的視角才是正確的。不,我只是要再次聲明我們想要的現實並不一致,並且接受在某些現實之下我必要有的敵人身份。但對我來說,最後重要的不是別人對我的敵視有沒有道理,而是實現所有靠維持一群相比另一群有更高權力組織的系統的結束,並且認識目標跟手段差異的發展到什麼地步能算是過分。

Perhaps the counterpoint is: you are incapable of making this recognition. Because you're outside the country of resistance, because you haven't done enough reading, and you should just defer to so-and-so opinion which represents the correct perspective. I could read a hundred articles, and I could listen to a million people, but I can't stop thoughts from entering my brain. I cannot force myself to produce an agreement that does not exist, and if that's the issue—that I cannot disagree as an autonomous being, because this use of my autonomy is incorrect—then the problem is even bigger.

或許反駁是:你沒有本事做出這種認識。因為你是在抵抗之國的國外、因為你讀的資料不夠,所以你該遵從某某某代表正確視角的意見。我可以讀一百個文章,可以聽數到百萬人說的話,但我無法阻止進入腦海的思想。我無法強迫自己產生出不存在的同意,而且如果問題是出在這裡的話—如果問題是我不能以自治實體的身份做出爭議,因為那會是錯誤的自治使用—那麼毛病就變得更大了。

I believe that it is not a coincidence that statist talking points—regardless of whether they come from the multipolarity of authoritarian communists or the militarism of anarchists—weaponize deference politics to protect their unassailability. At the heart of this unassailability is a contempt for autonomy, a vanguardist tendency to treat autonomy as an obstacle to effective resistance. To a vanguardist, everyone is an enemy, because everyone has the potential to go against the program of what resistance should be. People are to be managed: we must stop them from thinking, saying, or doing anything that goes against our program, which represents effective resistance.

我認為國家主義的論據—無論來自威權共產主義的多極體系或是無治主義的軍國主義—把遵從政治作為保護無可辯駁的武器不是偶然。在這無可辯駁的中心是自治的蔑視,是先鋒主義的傾向,把自治當作有效性抵抗的妨礙物。對先鋒主義者來說,大家都是敵人,因為大家都有違反抵抗該是什麼的綱領的能力。人民需要的是管理:我們必須阻止他們想、說或做出違反代表有效性抵抗的綱領的事。

Let me question it again: what kind of reality do you people actually want? Do you want a liberated world, or a world where you monopolize the terms of liberation? In your reality, does everyone have revolutionary potential, or is the ability for effective revolt only limited to a certain kind of group? Do you want to end your enemies, or the world that created them? What possibilities does your antagonism foreclose?

我再疑問一次:你們到底要的是什麼樣的現實?你們要的是解放的世界,還是解放條件被你獨攬的世界?在你的現實當中,是大家都有革命的能力,還是有效性的反抗能力只限於某一群人?你要消滅的是敵人,還是製造他們的世界?你的敵意排除了什麼可以發生的事?

The limitations imposed on resistance by State and Capital are the starting point, not the ending point. If resistance forces lack a means, we don't have to defend the states that provide them or dismiss the forces that accept them—we can support the development of means that don't rely on states, especially in moments of lull in resistance. Instead of condemning anti-statism as an unrealistic expectation for resistance, why not redouble our efforts to materially end the reality of the state's hegemony? Unless that really isn't what you want. Unless what you ultimately want is just the victory of people on your side by any means necessary, regardless of ends. Unless you can accept no other reality besides one in which your side's the victor. Unless this is all liberation will ever truly mean.

國家和資本對抵抗制定的限制是起點,不是終點。如果抵抗組織缺了渠道,我們不必為提供渠道的國家做辯護或對接受的組織不予理會—我們可以協助不依賴國家的渠道的發展,特別是在抵抗間歇的時刻。與其譴責反國家主義是對抵抗不切實際的憧憬,不如加倍努力在物質方面上結束國家霸權的現實?除非那真的不是你想要的改變。除非你最後只是想利用一切的手段讓你方的人得到勝利,目標完全不管。除非是你方當勝者之外,什麼現實都無法接受。除非這永遠會是解放能真正的意義。

written in response to this call for submissions

此徵選公告的回應

“As I stated, the Western military experts admit that the mechanized establishment guard must outnumber the attacking worker by ten to one. What they cannot afford to admit is that even with this numerical superiority they cannot win [...] At ten to one, we still enjoy a strategic, military superiority if we are attacking, because they must defend so many different points vital to the order and continuity of their life-support system, all at the same time. The points to be protected will always outnumber the units who are available to protect them.”

—George Jackson, Blood in My Eye

「如上所述,西方軍事專家承認機械化當權派的警衛隊人數必須是進攻勞動者的十倍。他們擔負不起承認的是就算是擁有數量方面的優勢他們完全贏不了 [...] 在十比一的比例之下,如果我們進攻還是能享有戰略性、軍事方面的優勢,因為他們必須守護那麼多對他們生命維持系統的秩序和持續必不可少的的不同地點,而且要同時守護。必須保護的地點永遠會超過可以保護它們的小隊。」

—喬治·傑克遜,《眼露凶光》

The first time I shoplifted, I was scared as shit. To calm myself down, I kept repeating George Jackson's words like a mantra in my head: The points to be protected will always outnumber the units who are available to protect them. The points to be protected will always outnumber the units who are available to protect them. The security guards couldn't check every aisle at once. There were so many security cameras, I was nothing but a humanoid blur on their screens. I acted like a regular shopper, just browsing for things to buy, while moving nonstop like a shark to avoid the fate of being caught. And I got away. And I couldn't believe it was that easy.

第一次商店行竊的時候,我心裡著急得很。為了讓自己靜下來,我像在唸咒語一樣在心裡中一直重複喬治·傑克遜的話:必須保護的地點永遠會超過可以保護它們的小隊。必須保護的地點永遠會超過可以保護它們的小隊。保安人員不可能一次巡查每一個通道。監視攝影機那麼多,我在它們的螢幕上只不過是個模糊的人形點。我假裝自己是個普通的購物者,只是在看看能買的東西,同時像鯊魚一樣不停地移動,避免被抓到的命運。我就那樣溜走了。簡直不敢相信,真的是那麼簡單。

When I got home, I went back to my Buddhist altar, and turned to face my Siddartha Gautama statue with a sense of guilt. There are five basic precepts in Buddhism that even laypeople have to follow, and I just violated the second one, which was not to steal. Should I even be keeping the altar up anymore? Supporting illegalism and other people's illegalist praxist was one thing, but how could I have the nerve to do it myself and still keep saying I'm Buddhist?

到家的時候,我回到自己的佛壇,愧疚地面對我的釋迦牟尼調像。佛教連在家眾都要遵守的基本五戒,之中我違犯了第二個不偷戒。這樣的話,我是該把佛壇拆下來嗎?支持非法主義和別人的非法主義實踐是一回事,但自己去幹的話,哪來有臉皮繼續說自己是佛教徒?

Well, what kind of political conditions does that kind of Buddhism create? As a Buddhist, do you problematize me for being a thief that steals necessities I cannot afford, or the capitalists for robbing the proletariat of access to those things? As a Buddhist, are you obligated to ignore that the bourgeoisie have hegemony over laws and social norms that govern theft and ownership, and to pretend that the exploiters and the exploited steal under the same conditions? Are you enlightened for refusing to kill the cop in your head (killing violates the first precept, after all)?

啊那種佛教會創造什麼樣的政治狀況?作為佛教徒,你要問題化的是偷買不起必需品的我,還是剝奪無產階級對那些東西的使用權的資本主義者?作為佛教徒,你必要忽略資產階級對管理偷竊的法律和社會規範的霸權,假裝剝削者和被剝削者偷竊的情況一模一樣嗎?拒絕幹掉心裡警察是表示無上正覺的事嗎(殺生不是違犯第一戒嗎)?

What does a Buddhist politically achieve by personally refusing to steal (or kill oppressors)? Reality is not a sutta governed by Buddhist principles—by refusing to take what we need and dying like martyrs, we will not prefigure the ruling class and their lapdogs into dāna and mettā, let alone anarchy and communism. Every commodity you buy fuels the death machine that is capitalism. A cop is not going to care how clean your conscience is before they shoot you. To take the five precepts as universally applicable moral guidelines at face value, and to let the praxis of transcendent spiritual liberation take precedence over the praxis of destroying hierarchical power dynamics and ending the historical material conditions that created them is counterrevolutionary. To me, it is meaningless to believe in a religion that aims for all beings to be free from suffering if the world continues to reproduce systems that create preventable suffering for classes of oppressed people in fact. The only thing that would give it meaning is a religious commitment to changing that world.

佛教徒個人拒絕偷竊(或擊殺壓迫者)的話會得到什麼樣的政治效果?現實不是取決於佛教理論的契經—我們不會以拒絕奪取需要的物品像烈士死去的方式預示統治階級和它們的走狗表現出佈施和慈觀,更不用說無治和共產。每個購買的商品是為資本主義這死亡機器添加的燃料。對你開槍的警察不會管你有沒有天理良心。把五戒信以為真地當作是普遍適用的道德指導方針,並且讓超越宇宙靈性解放的實踐比消滅等級制度的權力動態和結束製造那些動態的歷史物質條件的實踐變得更重要是反革命性的行為。對我來說,如果世界在實際上繼續再生產為被壓迫階級的人製造可阻止的痛苦的系統,對一個目標是讓一切眾生脫離痛苦的宗教有信仰完全沒有意義。唯一能讓它有意義的是虔誠改變那世界的承諾。

So yes, I have the nerve to keep calling myself a Buddhist. I have the nerve to turn breaking the second precept into a religious ritual I regularly observe, because I know ownership isn't politically neutral, and my faith obligates me to take a side, and to accept the karma of that decision. I am not afraid of being reincarnated in Naraka for these transgressions. By the end of a militant life in the human realm, I hope the wardens in hell will be afraid of me.

所以沒錯,我有臉繼續說自己是佛教徒。我有臉把違犯第二戒當作是一種定期舉行的宗教儀式,因為我知道物主身分不是政治中立的事,而我的信仰強使我決定自己站在哪一邊,並且接受決定的果報。我不怕因為這些違反投生奈落。在人間好鬥地過完一生之後,我希望心裡著急的會是地獄裡的獄卒。

an activist, a defender, a crusader of human rights, “your comrade” i'm not your comrade i'm not putting my body on the ground for you for your numbers for your fiction of holy struggle i will not die a martyr for i further no holy cause but as the total apostate which i really am— for the revolution is not a pious event but the most godless of processes and who are you to fucking pray for me?

死都別說我是

什麼活動家、什麼人權保護者、 什麼鬥士、「你的同志」 我不是你的同志 我在現場現的身 不是獻給你 獻給你的人數 獻給你謊稱的聖戰 死後我成不了烈士 因為我推不動聖潔的事業 其實我就只能當的是 十足的叛教者— 因為革命 不是虔誠的事件 而是最無神的過程 而你 到底是憑什麼資格 為我祈屁禱?

Screenshot of post that says: "the need to feel like you're Doing Something (politically) will get you manipulated so easily if you're not careful" 貼文截圖:「需要(在政治方面)有『做點事』的感覺不小心的話會讓你很容易被利用」 需要(在政治方面)有「做點事」的感覺不小心的話會讓你很容易被利用

When I was a child, autonomous organizing was out of the question for me as someone who grew up in an abusive family. Even after becoming an adult, my parents would not let me go outside on my own, and when they did I not only had to do it according to their schedule, but also couldn't associate with people they did not approve of—that is to say, anybody whose goal wasn't to succeed “like normal” under the colonial, white supremacist, capitalist system was off limits. If I wanted to mess with politics, it could only be for helping me to get into a good school or into a good job. So for most of my life, social media was the only place I was active politically. It socialized me into reductive and antagonistic terms of engagement, and I was always looking to follow the accounts that yelled the most at the most people, thinking that those who always lost their temper at the drop of a hat over any amount of social injustice, no matter how small, were the one who were most committed to criticizing society. And as soon as someone got angry at me, I compulsively forced myself to change my mind.

小時候,做自治的組織行動對在虐待性家庭長大的我是絕對不可能的事。甚至是成年了之後,我的父母都不會讓我自己出門,而且出門的時候不僅要按照他們的時間,也不能跟他們不接受的人結交—也就是說,任何目的不是在殖民、白人至上主義的資本主義系統之下得到「正常」成功的人都禁止入生。要搞政治,必須只能為了幫助我進好學校或是找到好工作。因此,大半輩子 SNS 是我唯一有積極參與政治的地方。它的社會化讓我習慣簡化性和對抗性的互動標準,而我一直都在尋找最會罵最多人的帳戶去追隨,以為最常為了不管多麼大小的社會不公發脾氣的人就是最投入社會批評的人。而且一當別人生氣,我就強迫自己馬上改變意見。

I told myself it wasn't fawning, it was refusing to tone police. I bought into the functionally abusive form of accountability called “deference politics,” because I didn't think I was qualified to do anything but to defer. I had no political principles, because I did not think I had the ability to arrive at “the correct” political principles, because I had no political self-esteem. I did not think I was allowed to think or do anything unless it was perfectly correct according to everyone else's standards of social justice or die, because I did not think I deserved to have autonomy.

我跟自己說這不是在討好,這是在拒絕管制語氣。我完全相信了作用是虐待的「服從政治」問責模式,因為我認為除了服從我什麼都沒資格去做。我沒有政治原則,因為我認為自己沒有能力找到「正確」的政治原則,因為我沒有政治的自我肯定。我認為除非是完全符合大家的社會正義標準的話我什麼東西都完全不能去做完全不能去想,因為我認為自己沒有資格擁有自治力。

This isn't an inspiring story about how I reached complete recovery. This is a story about how many times I broke myself for other people to get to where I'm at.

這不是我如何得到完全康復激勵人心的故事。這是我為了別人破壞自己多少次才能到現在的地步的故事。

When I escaped from home and started autonomously organizing offline, I had sort of this idealized image of the local organizing scene, because in comparison to the community of deference politickers I left, it seemed so perfect online. In my heart, I thought: “I failed to be perfect for the deference politickers, but I can try being perfect here.”

當我逃出家之後開始在線下參與自治組織的行動,我對當地的組織圈子有點理想化的印象,因為跟我離開的服從政治活動家的社群比,他們在網路上看起來很完美。心裡想:「為了那些服從政治活動家我失敗做出完美,但在這裡做出完美可以再去試。」

I fall in love with my first project. The comrades there aren't perfect, but for the first time, I feel like I'm Doing Something. I join my first affinity group, and pretend I'm okay that they're almost all white, pretend this isn't a reproduction of the white supremacist conditions of this white-dominated city, pretend that I never grew up militantly refusing to befriend white people after my mom told me a white doctor made fun of her accent, pretend I can be perfectly normal about all this for them. Because all we have is each other. Because besides them I have nobody else.

我愛上了弟一個項目。那裡的同志確實不完美,但我第一次感覺到自己在「做點事」。我加入了第一個同寅組織,假裝他們幾乎全部是白人不是個問題、假裝這不是這白人主導的城市的白人至上狀態的再生產、假裝自從我媽媽跟我提過白醫生嘲笑她的腔之後我從來沒有好鬥地拒絕跟白人做朋友、假裝為了他們我能把這當作是完全的正常。因為我們唯一擁有的就是彼此。因為除了他們我誰都沒有。

I fuck up with my first project. I find out my affinity group may have accidentally helped one homeless comrade rob another in camp. Even though my affinity group says it's a problem for the camp to solve, I insist on confirming the truth and making amends, and talk to the camp about it with a comrade outside the affinity group. It turns out to be a misunderstanding, but the comrade accused of stealing ends all contact with me afterwards. I do not forgive myself for this result. I ban myself from working with both the camp and my affinity group forever. I'm back to having no one again.

我搞砸了第一個項目。我發現我的同寅組織可能不小心幫了一個無家可歸的同志在營地偷了別人的東西。雖然同寅組織說這是營地人該解決的問題,我堅持要確定真實和給予補償,跟同寅組織外的同志一起去跟營地人談一談。結果是誤會,可是被控告偷東西的同志跟我斷聯。得到這樣的結果我無法原諒自己。我永遠禁止自己跟營地人和我的同寅組織合作。我回到完全沒有別人的生活。

And then I have a psychotic break. I delete or leave all my social media accounts because I'm afraid of what I'll say to other people. This lasts for about an year. And when I come back to social media, I'm completely raw. Every interaction terrifies me. If I can't even trust my basic perception of material reality, how can I trust my perceptions on a social and political level? But I learn to live without that trust. Because all I have is myself. My damned-to-be-imperfect self.

然後我的思覺又突然失調。因為害怕自己會對別人說的話我刪掉或離開所有的 SNS 帳戶。這樣的狀態大概持續了一年。然後當我回到 SNS 的時候,感覺是完全的刺痛。每一個互動都讓我害怕到不行。如果我連物質現實的知覺都不能信任,怎麼能信任自己對社會和政治的觀念?但我學會在沒有那信任的狀態之下繼續生活。因為我唯一擁有的只有自己。我注定無法完美的自己。

I fall in love with my second project. It's even more glorious than the first. It drives me crazy in all the right ways. And it connects me to new comrades and a third project I fall in love with. For the first time, I even get close enough to some of those comrades to call them friends. And just when I think it will last, everything blows up in my face in quick succession. I civilly try to tell Comrade-friend 1 not to use the term “narcissistic abuse” because it's Cluster B sanism, and when I express my sadness over 1's refusal to stop using it, 1 weaponizes my own personality disorder against me and accuses me of symptomatically demanding perfection. Comrade-friend 2 and I fall into a student-mentor dynamic, in which 2 acts as my guide to the local organizing scene. 2 starts telling me how a bunch of comrades I'm one to two degrees of separation from are or are covering for abusers, rapists and the like. And even though all of the accusations are true, even though I always want to hear those warnings, by the time I'm done distancing myself from those people, I have almost no one left but 2.

我愛上了第二個項目。比第一個項目還要更榮美。它讓我發了最對的瘋。而且它也讓我接觸到新的同志和第三個被我愛上的項目。我第一次跟其中一些同志們親近到能說他們是朋友。然後正當我認為能在這樣的狀態繼續過下去,就碰到了一個又一個的失算。我很客氣地跟同志朋友 1 號說不要用「自戀型虐待」這一詞,因為是對 B 型人格疾患的精神障礙歧視,而當我向 1 號對停用的拒絕表示悲傷,1 號利用我自己的人格障礙來批評我說我是根據症狀性地在要求完美。同志朋友 2 號和我開始了學生和導師的動態,之中 2 號作為我的當地組織圈子嚮導。2 號開始告訴我一大堆我有一到二度分隔的同志自己是或是在幫忙掩護虐待者、強暴者等等。雖然那些控告全都是真的、雖然那些警告我一直都會想聽,當我和那些人疏遠完之後,身邊就快要只剩下 2 號了。

One day, when 2 is breaking the news to me about another rapist-abuser, we have a fight. 2 accuses me of being an abuse apologist, over details I refuse to share publicly. And I'm aware this means some people will think this means I'm selectively redacting details to make it look like I'm not really an abuse apologist. And I'm aware that preemptively adding that disclaimer also looks performative. I don't expect you to take my side. I'm not telling this story because it's right, I'm telling it because it's true.

有一天,當 2 號在跟我說另一個強暴和虐待者的消息,我們吵起了架。 2 號指責我是虐待辯護者,細節我不願意公開分享。我也知道這樣會讓某些人認為我是在有選擇地刪減內容為了要讓自己看起來不是虐待辯護者。也知道先發制人地加上那個免責聲明會看起來很操演性。我不指望你跟我站在同一邊。我說這個故事的原因不是因為正確,而是真實。

So 2 and I stop working together. And I'm obsessive about trying to figure out whether or not 2 was right to call me an abuse apologist. I'm an abuse survivor. I need to have solidarity with other survivors. It's personal. But I can't force myself to agree with 2. And I hate myself for it. And then 2 gets accused of being a sexual predator. And others come forward with stories of being abused by 2. And then I think about all the other things I could say about 2 that I won't in public that made me question why I wanted 2's approval so much, why it felt like I was nothing when 2 left. And then I hate myself even more, for having been played.

因此 2 號跟我不再一起合作了。而且我一直不停地試圖搞清楚 2 號說我是虐待辯護者到底有沒有錯。我自己是虐待倖存者。我必須跟其他的倖存者團結一致。是私人恩怨。可是我就是逼不了自己跟 2 號同意。我也為此痛恨自己。然後 2 號被指告是性掠奪者。然後其他人跑出來說有被 2 號虐待。然後我開始想到其他我能但是拒絕在公開的地方說關於 2 號的事,讓我懷疑當時為什麼那麼要 2 號的讚賞、為什麼 2 號走了之後讓我覺得自己什麼都不是。然後我又再次痛恨自己,因為自己被耍了。

A comrade invites me to join another project. And I do not fall in love with it. But I stay, thinking the love might come, eventually. It doesn't. It is the most disorganized, white, liberal, reformist, and politically toothless “autonomous” project I have ever been on, and I was a fool to think my influence would have changed anything. I thought work would be the only place where I'd routinely be the only person in the room with a problem, politically. I was not expecting that treatment from people who insisted I was their comrade. “Comrade”—that word didn't mean a damn thing anymore. To them, a “comrade” was someone they could use. A body on the ground. A vessel to be sacrificed for The Cause. Not someone who struggled by their side with shared affinity. “Affinity” didn't mean a damn thing anymore. “Affinity” for them really just meant affection—and affection meant “we like you, do things that we like, or we're going to treat you like you don't exist.”

一位同志邀請我加入另一個項目。我並沒有愛上它。可是我決定待下來,想說愛可能會慢慢出現。但沒有。它是我參與最毫無計劃、最白、最自由派、最改良派和最沒有政治權力的「自治」項目,而且認為我的影響能改變任何這些東西是我在傻。我以為只有工作才會是我一直要當房間裡唯一有政治方面問題的人的地方。想不到堅持說我是他們的同志的人會那樣對待我。「同志」—那一詞變成了死都沒有意思。對他們來說,「同志」就是有用的人。現場現的身。為了偉大的事業能被犧牲的寄託者。不是在身邊一起鬥爭,跟他們有共同的同寅的人。「同寅」變成了死都沒有意思。他們「同寅」的意味只不過是感情—而且感情的意味是:「我們喜歡你,繼續做出我們喜歡的東西,不然我們會把你當作是空氣。」

The day I finally quit that crew, I went on a pilgrimage back to the place where I fell in love with my first project. It has an abandoned water tower, with a long ladder you climb down into total darkness. I remember back then, the first time I went down there with my affinity group, I was so afraid. It was just so overwhelming, not being able to see what was ahead of you, even with a flashlight. But this time I was not afraid. I knew what to expect from the dark. This time I went down alone, and made it all the way to the back of the water tower. And when I made it to the back, I turned around out of curiosity, and witnessed how the sunlight still streamed down from the top of the ladder, realizing that from this angle, the water tower was actually not that dark on the inside. I realized that was what autonomous organizing had felt like for me—how I felt so trapped by all the things that overwhelmed me, that I forgot to look at how far I'd come.

我終於退出那群人之後的那一天,我去訪問愛上第一個項目的地點。那裡有個被遺棄的水塔,裡頭有長長的梯子讓你爬下去進入完全的黑暗。我記得那時候,跟我的同寅組織第一次爬下去,害怕得不得了。就是連有了手電筒都看不見前面有什麼東西,超不能忍受。可是這次我不怕。我知道黑暗會是怎麼樣。這次我自己下去,完全走到水塔的最後面。然後走到後面時,我好奇地轉過來,目擊到陽光從梯子的最上面還是能照得下來,發現從這個角度來看,水塔的裡面其實不太暗。我發覺這就是參與自治組織行動給我的感覺—感覺一直被忍受不了的事情困住,困到忘了看看自己已經走了多遠。

Quitting the project I could not love suddenly freed up so much time for me. I filled it ravenously with things that kept my daggers drawn. It wasn't because I needed to Do Something. It was because, for the first time in my life, I was never clearer about the specific things I wanted to do. I understand, when my options for “comrades” in this city are more often than not people who weaponize “affinity” to discipline you into following their radical or reactionary “autonomous” party line, “all we have is each other” feels like a hostage situation. And I now understand, if what I actually want is revolution, then to let these people make me feel ashamed for wanting more is unprincipled behavior.

退出我愛不上的項目突然讓我奪回了很多時間。我貪婪地用劍拔弩張的事把空填滿。不是因為自己需要「做點事」。是因為這是我生活中第一次那麼徹底地明白自己特別想要做的事。我了解,當我在這個城市中能選擇的「同志」往往都是利用「同寅」來規訓你遵循他們的激進或反動的「自治」路線的人,「我們唯一擁有的就是彼此」感覺就是挾持人質。我現在也了解,如果我真正要的是革命的話,讓這些人讓我因為想要更多而感到羞恥是沒有原則的行為。

Because revolution is not about you coming across as correct—as palatable—to “the masses” or to your comrades in “the cadre.” Revolution is about actually ending the social and material conditions of domination and exploitation that organize the world. And to move with principle is to move with militant clarity on that matter—even if you have to move alone. And to ask that clarity of your comrades is not demanding perfection. It is asking for the bare minimum of revolution. And if revolution is not your bare minimum—if all you want is just to be Doing Something, and to be cheered on for doing that—I am not going to be your enabler. Because god knows I have already enabled myself too much.

因為革命需要的不是讓「群眾」或在「幹部」中的同志感到你的正確—你的可接受性。革命需要的是在實際上結束組織世界的主宰和剝削性的社會和物質狀態。按照原則來行動也就是行動的時候要按照好鬥性的清晰思路去搞懂那件事—就算剩下能行動的人就只有你。而要求你的同志們擁有那樣的清晰思路不是在要求完美。是在要求革命的最低限度。而如果革命不是你的最低限度—如果你唯一要的只是來「做點事」然後被鼓勵—我不要當你的縱容者。天曉得我已經自我縱容了太多次。